IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.02.2026 GURPREET SINGH ALIAS GOPI ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Rajiv K. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this 3rd petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 i s for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.14 dated 14.02.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Batala, District Batala, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (offences under the PC Act deleted later on) and Sections 308(2), 111, 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and 25 of the Arms Act,1959 (added later on).

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and it is on the disclosure statement of co-accused Ankush Saini that his name surfaced. No recovery has been effected from him, and as such prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that this is the third bail petition for grant of anticipatory bail. There is no change in circumstances that has been pointed out. I n the present case, the petitioner is alleged to have received extortion money of Rs.50 lakh from one Jagdish Kumar. Furthermore, he is an accused in connected FIR No.12 dated 04.02.2025, registered at Police Station Kalanaur, under Sections 125 BNS and 25 of the Arms Act, regarding the incident of firing, wherein his petition seeking pre-arrest bail also stands dismissed by this Court on 02.05.2025 and subsequently on 23.01.2026. She, thus, states that thorough investigation still needs to be conducted for which, his custodial interrogation is required.

4. Heard.

5. It would be apposite to refer to t he order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court dismissing the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in CRM-M-21548-2025, it being filed prior to the present petition, relevant portions whereof read thus:

“8. The case at hand arises from a raid conducted at the residence of co-accused ASI Surjit Singh on the basis of credible intelligence indicating possession of unaccounted wealth acquired through corrupt practices. The raid yielded substantial cash recovery to the tune of Rs.76,32,000/-, along with a high-value vehicle. Subsequent investigation led to the apprehension of co-accused Ankush Saini, from whom Rs.5,91,500/- in cash, a pistol and a vehicle were recovered. His disclosure statement led to the involvement of the petitioner in repeated acts of extortion. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, had jointly received Rs.50 lakhs in extorted money from the complainant-Jagdish, which they divided amongst themselves. The allegations further suggest that the petitioner was habitually involved in such extortion activities and that this was not an isolated instance. As per the learned State counsel, the petitioner is involved in 3 other criminal cases including cases of identical nature.

9. The nature and gravity of the allegations, which involve organized criminal activity including extortion, intimidation, and the use of firearms reflect a serious threat to public order and safety.

10. At this stage, the investigation is at a nascent stage. The possibility of the police gathering further incriminating evidence cannot be ruled out. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner would, therefore, be necessitated for unearthing the wider nexus of organized crime involved.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.”

6. Division Bench of this Court in Manjinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab , CRM-M-40916-2022, decided on 30.01.2023, had as regards the maintainability of second anticipatory bail observed that, “We have already