Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/37835/2026 of AMARJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 3 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37835-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 AMARJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER …Petitioners V/S STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.
205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37835-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.09.2026
AMARJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER
…Petitioners
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
Present: Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, DAG Punjab.
****
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL
J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No.70 dated 28.04.2026, under Sections 103, 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, District Grurdaspur. Offences under Sections 238, 249, 253 and 61(2) of BNS were added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first application for anticipatory bail.
2. On 03.08.2026, following order was passed: “1. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No.70 dated 28.04.2026, under Sections 103, 109 of BNS and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Ghuman, Police District Batala, District Grurdaspur. Offences under Sections 238, 249, 253 and 61(2) of BNS were added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first application for anticipatory bail.
2. As per FIR, on 27.04.2026 at about 8:55 PM, two unknown persons came on two motorcycles and fired gun shots at Kashmir Singh, his friend Jugraj Singh son of Sabhi and Jugraj Singh son of Veeru. Kashmir Singh and Jugraj Singh son of Sabhi fell and died on the spot while Jugraj Singh son of Veeru ran away towards the fields. The assailants fired gun shot at him and he, too, suffered gunshot injuries. After that, the assailants fled away on their motorcycle. It appears that subsequently, on 08.05.2026, police recorded GD No.25 dated 08.05.2026 against the petitioners, the parents of Jatin Singh who has since been arrested in the FIR as one of the assailants who fired the gun shot. It is alleged that petitioners, being father and mother of Jatin Singh, supported him; that after the incident also, Jatin called his mother and told her that he had shot three people in village Bhoma and was hiding in village Khaide Bala Chak.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were parents of Jatin Singh who had nothing to do with the offence under Section 103 and 109 BNS. The only role attributed to them was that they had given shelter to co-accused Jatin Singh, their son and had harboured him. He further submits that the police had wrongly invoked Section 61(2) of BNS against them. There was nothing to show that the petitioners were part of any conspiracy with their son in committing the offence.
4. Status report by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Sri Hargobindpur, Police District Batala, has been filed by learned State counsel, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel concedes that the only role attributed to the petitioners was that they supported their son Jatin Singh and shielded him. After Jatin Singh committed the offence, they harboured him.
5. Concededly, petitioners are not alleged to have conspired with co-accused Jatin to commit the offence under Sections 109 and 103 BNS. Considering their previous clean antecedents and the nature and substance of allegations against the petitioners, the role attributed to them, they are directed to appear before the Investigating/Arresting Officer and join investigation within one week or as and when required. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioners on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
6. List on 03.09.2026.”
3. Learned State counsel on instructions from SI Rajwant Kaur submits that petitioners have joined investigation and are no longer required for custodial interrogation.
4. Petitioners have joined investigation pursuant to order of this Court dated 03.08.2026 and their further custodial interrogation is not required. In the circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, the petition is allowed and order dated dated 03.08.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
5. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 03.09.2026
JUDGE
Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No