IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Gurkamaljit Singh ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of Decision: February 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 10, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.04 dated 02.01.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar.

2. The gravamen of the FIR in question is that complainant, namely, Neha daughter of Narinder Kumar, stated that she is running D7 Hair and Beauty Salon. She further stated that she had been in a relationship with Gurkamaljit Singh (petitioner herein) son of Daljitam Singh for the last

8–9 months and they had been residing together for about 3–4 months with the consent of the family members of Gurkamaljit Singh (petitioner herein).

The complainant alleged that on 02.12.2025 at about 12:00 midnight, Gurkamaljit Singh (petitioner herein) had an argument with her and thereafter took away her car bearing registration No.PB-08-FK-2383 (i20) and left the house. She further stated that her passport was also lying in the said vehicle. She further alleged that on 04.12.2025, Gurkamaljit Singh (petitioner herein) forcibly entered her salon by breaking open the locks and committed theft of Rs.40,000 in cash. Due to the said incident, she had to borrow money from others to restart her salon business. She further alleged that on 20.12.2025, Gurkamaljit Singh (petitioner herein) again entered her salon and damaged various articles lying therein. She further stated that the family members of Gurkamaljit Singh (petitioner herein) had assured her that they would return her car and belongings, however, till date neither her car nor her articles have been returned.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner and the complainant used to live in relationship since February 2025. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner and the complainant both agreed to run a saloon, in which the petitioner had invested the amount, but when the said business did not turn profitable, then they decided to shut the same down. Learned counsel has argued that, thereafter, when the complainant shifted the products of the saloon to her other saloon, the petitioner demanded his share, but the complainant started making excuses on one pretext to other. Learned counsel has also argued that the petitioner is bearing expenditure of the complainant’s seven year old son as well. Learned counsel has further argued that the application of the complainant regarding release of car in question on supardari has also been allowed, vide order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the Court below.

3.1. Learned counsel has argued that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation, and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, grant of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. On advance service of copy of petition, learned State counsel appears and has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. Learned counsel has argued that investigation, in the present case, is still under way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. In case, the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, there is all likelihood that he may interfere with the prosecution evidence/ witnesses. Given these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petiti