CRM-M/46354/2026 of MANPREET KAUR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 26 August 2026

1. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No. 139 dated 20.06.2026 under Sections 109, 345(3) and 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Division No. 5, Commissionerate Jalandhar, District Jalandhar. Offences under Sections 308(2), 61(2) and 111 BNS were added in the FIR during investigation. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.

2. On 20.06.2026, when police party was patrolling in the area of Niyattam Nagar, Jalandhar, they heard sounds of gun shots and proceeded towards Avtar Nagar, where two young persons were seen riding a motorcycle, carrying weapons. They attempted to flee at high speed on seeing the police, but the motorcycle collided with a parked car, as a result of which, both of them fell down. Thereafter, those persons opened fire at the police party. The pillion rider suffered gun shot injury on his shoulder and fell down, whereas the driver abandoned the motorcycle and managed to escape. The pillion rider disclosed his name as Gurlal Singh son of Ikkatar Singh and identity of the driver was revealed to be Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi. Gurlal Singh disclosed that he and his companion had fired shots at the owner of Chawla Mobile with intention to kill him. During investigation, motorcycle and loaded weapon was taken into police possession. Six live cartridges were recovered from the weapon along with one empty cartridge. Registration number affixed on the motorcycle was found to be forged.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Gurlal, who was apprehended at the spot allegedly disclosed the names of Gursharanjit, Neeraj and Ekamjit Singh, who were nominated as accused. Later, Neeraj disclosed that Balihar Singh @ Ekam son of Kuljit Singh, residing in U.K., had been giving them directions and also disclosed involvement of his brother Gursewak Singh and mother Manpreet Kaur (petitioner). He argued that Ekamjit, who was initially nominated as accused, was discharged. Petitioner was a 43 years old lady with clean antecedents, who had been falsely implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. No specific role or overt act was attributed to her, nor the details of her participation were disclosed. The police did not collect any electronic evidence to show that petitioner was in contact with co-accused or even had knowledge of the offence. Petitioner was involved in the case only because she was mother of Balihar Singh @ Ekam, who was residing in U.K. for the last 04 years. In these circumstances, petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail.

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of Aatish Bhatia, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub Division West, Police

Commissionerate, Jalandhar. Same is taken on record. Be tagged at the appropriate place. He opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail arguing that during the course of investigation, accused Gurlal disclosed that petitioner along with her two sons facilitated the commission of offence and had given ₹5,000/- advance to co-accused for executing the offence. Even though, her name figured in disclosure statement of co-accused, her custodial interrogation was necessary. As such, prayer for anticipatory bail be declined.

5. The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right of the prosecution for free, fair and unhindered investigation as also personal liberty of the accused and interest of the society. Role attributed to the accused is required to be considered with great care and caution. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime.

6. It is alleged in the status report that son of the petitioner namely Balihar Singh @ Ekam provided a 0.32 bore pistol and motorcycle to the co- accused for executing the plan of killing the owner of Chawla Mobile shop. Petitioner, allegedly, gave ₹5,000/- to Gurlal Singh and others. She is alleged to be one of the links in the chain of circumstances and her custodial interrogation is necessary for conducting proper, effective and thorough investigation. Allegations against her are serious and role of other accused in the conspiracy needs thorough probe. There are no exceptional grounds made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

7. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an opinion on merits of the case.

8. Pending CRM(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) August 26, 2026

JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No