IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

112 CRM-M-17866-2026 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : 02.04.2026 PRINCE RANDEV .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Aashish Bhagat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.288 dated 30.11.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala.

2. The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘Sanjeeta Rani’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that she was a housewife, and that in the same house, where she was residing, her brother-in-law was also living in a separate portion. According to complainant, Prince Randev (petitioner herein), who is the son of her another brother-in-law, namely Sanjeev Randev, was residing with them. As per complainant, she had kept her jewellery comprising of four gold bangles, one gold chain, four gold rings, one karra, and one Apple Watch in her purse in the almirah, and that on 28.02.2025, on the occasion of wedding of her sister-in-law’s son, when she opened her almirah to take out the jewellery, she found that the same to be missing.

3. The complainant further alleged that at her own level, when she made inquiries, she came to know that the petitioner had committed the abovementioned theft. As per complainant, the abovementioned fact stood verified because within 12-13 days of the incident, the petitioner had purchased a ‘Mahindra Thar’ vehicle. According to complainant, the petitioner, subsequently, got the ornaments released from ‘Muthoot Finance’, and sold the same to a jeweler and used the money.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

5. Notice of motion

6. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. No formal reply has been filed by the learned State Counsel. However, he has opposed the instant petition.

7. Heard.

8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, and that the maximum punishment prescribed for the commission of abovementioned offence is imprisonment upto seven years. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, and that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner to show that he was responsible for the abovementioned theft.

9. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has contended that in the present case, sufficient link evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner with regard to commission of offence, such as the statement of the official working in the office of ‘Muthoot Finance’, to whom the jewellery was handed over for raising the loan, has been recorded, and that even the jeweler to whom the jewellery was sold has been joined in the investigation in the present case. According to learned State Counsel, in order to recover the abovementioned jewellery and to collect the relevant evidence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the instant case.

10. The record has been perused carefully.

11. As far as the benefit of anticipatory bail is concerned, it is settled principles of law that the Court must be circumspect, while exercising power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule. Rather as per law the abovesaid benefit should be