CRM-M/38315/2026 of PURAN SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 August 2026

CRM-M-3831

104 (1st case) IN THE HIG

Puran Singh

State of Punja

Date of decisi Date of Uploa

CORAM:

Present:-

SUMEET GO

Nagarik Surak P.C.) seeking No.328 dated Sections 103, (Sections 61(2 Station Civil L

2. Cheema (husb

3. reply by way o 5-2026 GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM-M-38315-2 versus ab ion: August 27, 2026 ading: August 27, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Pu *****

OEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed un ksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BN g grant of anticipatory bail to the 02.11.2025, registered for commis 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, Sections 2), 190, 191(3), 253 & 111 of th Lines Batala, District Gurdaspur. The FIR in question pertains to band of the complainant). The role of the petitioner (herein of an affidavit dated 30.07.2026 fil

HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner ….Respondent EET GOEL the petitioner. unjab. nder Section 482 of the Bharatiya NSS’) (earlier Section 438 of Cr. e petitioner, in case bearing FIR ssion of offences punishable under s 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 he BNS added later on), at Police murder of Jasjit Singh @ Deepu ), as stated in Para-9 of the short led by the State, reads thus:

r t a . R r e u t

“9. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER

That, during the course of investigation, credible secret information was received to the effect that the present petitioner, namely Puran Singh, being the father-in- law of accused Supreet Singh @ Harry Chatha continued to provide covert support to him in furtherance of his criminal activities. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner knowingly facilitated the activities of the organized criminal syndicate by extending assistance to its members, including providing financial and logistical support and helping gangsters evade law enforcement. On the basis of the said secret the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the present case vide DDR No.38 dated 03.11.2025. The role attributed to the petitioner is not merely incidental but peripheral as he providing support to organized criminal syndicate and its members despite being fully aware of their criminal activities.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It has further been contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has been implicated only on account of him being the father-in-law of the co-accused. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of secret information, but no evidence regarding his complicity is available on record. It has been submitted that the case in hand is based on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel has further iterated that there is nothing on record to show involvement of the petitioner in the said offence.

4.1. Learned counsel has contended that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Kuldeep Kaur has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 22.04.2026 passed in CRM-M-15007-2026.

4.2. Learned counsel has further contended that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required. It has been contended that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind bars. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner has been entreated for.

5. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the short reply ibid, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It has been stated that considering the seriousness of the allegations, there exists a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner, if granted the concession of anticipatory bail, may abscond from the process of justice as also tamper with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. Learned State counsel has also submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective and fair investigation. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel has prayed that the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.

7. As per the prosecution case, and upon a perusal of the record as well as the order passed by the Court below, it prima facie emerges that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. It is, prima facie, borne out from the prosecution case that the husband of the complainant was murdered by firing gunshots. Prosecution case, prima facie, further reveals that the petitioner being the father-in-law of co-accused, continued to extend covert support to him in furtherance of his criminal activities. The petitioner, despite being aware of the criminal activities of the organised criminal syndicate, knowingly facilitated operations by extending financial and logistical assistance and by helping the gangsters evade law enforcement agencies. The role attributed to the petitioner is not merely incidental; rather, he is alleged to have consciously provided support and assistance to the organised criminal syndicate and its members, despite being fully aware of their criminal antecedents and activities. In view of the serious allegations and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not merit the grant of the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

7.1. The plea raised by the petitioner that the co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail is of no help to him, particularly when the petition in hand seeks the grant of anticipatory bail, whereas the co-accused was granted the concession of regular bail after arrest of the said co-accused.

7.2. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR.

8. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) “6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well- ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

9. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE August 27, 2026 mahavir

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No