IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Jaimal Singh ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gaganbir Kaur Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG Punjab.

Mr. Rahi Mehra, Advocate for the complainant (through V.C.).

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed for seeking pre-arrest bail in case bearing FIR No. 238 dated 29.08.2024 for offence(s) under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. Short reply filed by way of affidavit dated 12.01.2026, on behalf of respondent-State, is already available on file and the same is taken on record. Registry is directed to do the needful.

3. The matter came up for hearing before this Court on 28.11.2025 when the following order was passed: -

“This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.238 dated 29.08.2024, registered under Sections

331(4), 305, 317(2) BNS, 2023, at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution is that 3.12 kgs. gold and cash amounting to Rs.55 lakhs were stolen from the house of the complainant. Initially, the driver of the complainant, namely, Babu was arrested, who, in his disclosure statement, has named three persons, namely, Deepak Singh, Raju and Rajinder Singh and thereafter, they named the present petitioner after one month of the alleged incident alleging that he had shared some amount of the stolen articles. Learned counsel, however, submits that besides the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no incriminating evidence which would connect the petitioner with the commission of offence.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and prays for time to file reply/status report. He may do so by the adjourned date with an advance copy to the opposite counsel.

List on 15.01.2026.

In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation as and when required and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of SHO/Investigating Agency, subject to the following conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS [erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.]:-

i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court;

iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-

section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.”

4. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 15.01.2026. On the said date, counsel for the complainant entered appearance, and the case was adjourned to 23.04.2026; however, on account of an administrative order, the hearing was preponed from 23.04.2026 to 18.03.2026. On the said date, counsel for the complainant sought time to file a reply. The said prayer was accepted and the matter was adjourned for today. Reply has not been filed on behalf of the complainant.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR was registered on the statement of Shyam Lata Aggarwal, who stated that she lives alone in her house and that all other family members are residing outside. It is stated that, while she and her family were out, certain persons entered the house and decamped with cash