IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 25.03.2026 Uploaded on: 25.03.2026 Gulzar Singh and another ……Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab ……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab (Through V.C.).

Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

Sumeet Goel (Oral):

1. Apprehending their arrest in FIR No.74 dated 03.09.2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala; the petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. On 11.03.2026, the following order was passed:

“Apprehending their arrest in FIR No.74 dated

03.09.2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala; the petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-

arrest bail.

Counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, the main accused namely Nitin Verma has already been released on regular bail & the petitioners are willing to join investigation and cooperate therein as per law.

Adjourned to 25.03.2026 The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 13.03.2026 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.

Be taken up in the urgent cause list.”

3. Learned State counsel (on instructions from ASI Baljit Singh) has submitted that the petitioners have joined investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the said petitioners are serious in nature and in case the petitioners are extended the concession of anticipatory bail, there is all the likelihood that they may interfere with the investigation as also intimidate the witnesses and also the FIR-complainant. She further submits that the petitioner No.2 is involved in another case and his anticipatory bail plea has also been declined in that case & hence, dismissal of the present petition is prayed for.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record; especially keeping in view the factum of the petitioners having joined investigation & cooperated therein and they are not required for custodial interrogation; this Court is inclined to confirm the order dated 11.03.2026.

6. Ordered accordingly.

7. This order should not be treated as “blanket” order. It will not be read 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.

8. 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.

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

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

(SUMEET GOEL)

25.03.2026 JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No