In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Date of Decision:- 12.02.2026 Sumanjit Kaur @ Sumanpreet Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.121 dated 28.07.2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 38, 339, 340(2), 3(5), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Baljit Singh. It is contended that the allegations against her are general and vague in nature, alleging that she is a member of a gang involved in procuring SIM cards on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, appeared on behalf of the respondent–State, and upon instructions from ASI Lakhwinder Singh opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that there are specific allegations against the petitioner to the effect that she purchased 15 SIM cards from co-accused Baljit Singh, and the specific numbers of the said SIM cards have been disclosed by the co-accused. It was further submitted that out of the said 15 SIM cards, one SIM was found to have been used inside the jail where her husband is presently confined. Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner was actively involved in the racket of procuring and supplying SIM cards obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present petition, submitting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the recovery of remaining SIM cards and to unearth the modus operandi adopted for preparing forged documents and procuring the SIM cards.

5. Heard.

6. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly in view of the specific allegations that the petitioner procured 15 SIM cards on the basis of forged and fabricated documents from co-accused Baljit Singh, and that out of the said 15 SIM cards, one was found to have been used inside the jail where her husband is presently confined, and further considering that custodial interrogation is necessary for recovery of the remaining SIM cards and to unearth the true facts of the case, this Court finds no merit in the present petition.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of custodial interrogation in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806’ decided on 03.08.1997, by holding that many useful informations and concealed materials may be elicited from a suspect in custody, than a suspect who is well-protected by an order of anticipatory bail, in which case, interrogation may be reduced to a mere ritual.

8. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the present petition stands dismissed.

9. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case.

( SUBHAS MEHLA )

12.02.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No