CRM-M/31339/2026 of RAJINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER on 27 August 2026

1. On 27.5.2026, the following order was passed: ‘1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'the BNSS'), has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.166 dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), registered under Section 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short - 'the BNS') (Section 317(2) of the BNS was added later on), at Police Station City Dhuri, District Sangrur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have been nominated in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of co- accused Saurav Chhabra who was arrested in another FIR bearing No.94 dated 04.04.2025 registered under Sections 331(4), 305 and 115(2) of the BNS and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Civil Line, Patiala.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for concession of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner on the following grounds:

i. That the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, who happens to be the son of petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 and disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence;

ii. That the alleged recovery was not effected from the house of the petitioners, but from the other place; iii That the petitioners have been arrayed as accused in the present case merely on account of their relationship with the co-accused. iv That petitioner No.1 is a 68 years old senior citizen suffering from brain tumour and other serious ailments, while petitioner No.2 is the mother of four minor children, all below the age of 10 years; That petitioner No.1 is a businessman and is engaged in the business of operating a Western Union outlet.

vi. The petitioners are having clean and clear antecedents as they are not involved in any other case except the present one; and

vii. The petitioners are ready and willing the join the investigation.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the following grounds:

i. That the co-accused was arrested in connection with another case and during the course of investigation, he disclosed his involvement in the present case;

ii. That pursuant to the arrest of the co-accused, 15.5 tolas of gold, alleged to be the stolen property pertaining to the present theft case, was recovered at his instance and duly identified; and

iii. Custodial interrogation is required for recovery of stolen articles. However, on a query posed by this Court whether except disclosure statement of co-accused any other material exists on record indicating the complicity of the petitioners, learned State counsel requested an adjournment to file reply.

6. Heard.

7. Adjourned to 07.07.2026.

8. No coercive method be used against the petitioners till the next date of hearing.’

2. On 5.8.2026, the following order was passed: ‘Reiterating his submissions as recorded in the order dated 27.5.2026, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are willing to join investigation and cooperate therein. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 11.8.2026 at 11:00 A.M. in concerned Police Station and join investigation. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail subject to their furnishing personal/surety bond(s) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. As and when further called by Investigating Officer, the petitioners shall join the investigation. They shall abide by the condition(s) enumerated under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Put up on 27.8.2026.’

3. Learned State counsel (on instructions) submits that pursuant to the orders dated 27.5.2026 and 5.8.2026, the petitioners have joined investigation but their custodial interrogation is required for recovery of gold articles in question.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, especially keeping in view the factum that the petitioners have joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is sought only for recovery of gold articles in question; this Court is inclined to confirm the orders dated 27.5.2026 and 5.8.2026.

5. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. The interim orders dated 27.5.2026 and 5.8.2026, passed by this Court are hereby confirmed, subject to the conditions as enumerated under Section 482(2) of BNSS.

6. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read as granting petitioners indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any other incident that involves commission of an offence.

7. Liberty is reserved in favour of State/complainant to move for cancellation/recall of this order in case the petitioners violate any condition stipulated under Section 482(2) of BNSS or upon showing any other sufficient cause.

8. Needless to say that anything observed herein above shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 27.8.2026 Ashwanii

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No