IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ranjit Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Date of Uploading : 03.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.106 dated 12.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 238 of BNS, 2023 (offence under Sections 61(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 added later on) at Police Station Cantt Bathinda, District Bathinda.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that the criminal proceedings were initiated based on a complaint filed by Girja Devi wife of Late Barsati lal, resident of House No.749, Street No.02, near Police Post Daba, Lakshman Nagar, Lohara Road, Ludhiana. The present case pertains to death of a social media influencer namely Kanchan Kumari, popularly known online as Kanchan Kaur Bhabhi from Ludhiana. Her body was found in a decomposed state inside a car in Bathinda. The complainant i.e. mother of the deceased reported the matter to the police after the discovery of the body of her daughter. She alleged that her daughter Kanchan had received a phone call from a man named Amritpal Singh, who had invited her for a car promotion job. At first, her daughter Kanchan refused but later agreed and left home with him on 09.06.2025 at 03:30 PM in a car. Before leaving, her daughter gave the phone number of said Amritpal Singh to the complainant and said that she would return after completing the work. When the daughter of the complainant did not return by 11:00 PM, the complainant became worried and tried calling both i.e. her daughter and Amritpal Singh but their phones were unreachable. The complainant tried again the next day but still could not contact them. On 11.06.2025, the complainant was informed that the dead body of her daughter had been found in the same car in Bathinda. According to the complainant, her daughter had been murdered by some unknown persons. Based on this information, the FIR ibid was registered against unknown persons. Later, in a supplementary statement, the mother named accused Jaspreet Singh, Nirmaljit Singh and Amritpal Singh Mehro as the suspects. On 13.06.2025, the police arrested accused Jaspreet Singh and Nirmaljit Singh and added Section 61(2) of BNS to the case. Their disclosure statements led to the involvement of Ranjit Singh (petitioner herein), who allegedly helped accused Amritpal Singh escape to Amritsar Airport to flee India. On account of this, Section 3(5) of BNS was also added on 14.06.2025.

Following investigation, the final report has been submitted before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor has any injury or overt act been attributed to him at any stage. According to learned counsel, the name of the petitioner surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaspreet Singh, who himself was nominated later thorough a supplementary statement. Learned counsel has further submitted that no motive has been attributed to the petitioner to commit any offence against the deceased and there is no direct evidence linking the petitioner to the incident in question. Learned counsel has emphasized that no substantial material has surfaced which indicate any direct role of the petitioner in the alleged murder. Furthermore, there is no eye-witness and the petitioner has no connection either with the deceased or with the principal accused. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he allegedly dropp