IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Karamdeep Singh @ Kamaldeep @ Kala ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate and Mr. Aman Sadian, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.262 dated 05.11.2025 registered under Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with co-accused, forcibly snatched the ear rings of the complainant by advancing threats to her. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 29.10.2025 but the FIR in question was registered on 05.11.2025 i.e. after a delay of 08 days, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. He argued that the petitioner has been nominated in this case as an accused only on the basis of suspicion without any concrete evidence and the complainant has failed to show how she came to know about the petitioner. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated

16.12.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has already filed the status report in the matter and while referring to the same, he has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. He further argued that the petitioner in connivance with co-accused has forcibly snatched the ear rings of the complainant by showing her datar. He further submitted that the petitioner is involved in more case meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter, to recover the said ear rings and identification and arrest of co-accused. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and the allegations against him are serious in nature. He is alleged to have forcibly snatched the ear rings of the complainant by showing her datar and advancing threats. The snatched ear rings of the complainant is yet to be recovered. This Court is sanguine of the fact that while considering the petition for anticipatory bail, it is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine the seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.

8. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Cou