IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 6^th April, 2026 Sajanpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 28 dated 12.02.2026 registered under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant Satinderjit Singh posted as Supervisor in B4S Company, Amritsar, alleging that on the intervening night of 29/30.01.2026, six batteries were stolen from one of the towers of his company located at village Naushera. On noticing that the alarm for location of the tower had gone off, he had rushed to the spot and had seen a vehicle bearing registration No. PB-13-AL-6753 while taking away the batteries. He alleged that he had made inquiries at his own level and had come to know that the batteries were taken away in the vehicle belonging to the petitioner. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2026.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. There is no basis for connecting him with the allegations of theft of the batteries. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from him. It is, thus, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by her that investigation conducted so far has revealed that the vehicle named in the FIR was used by the petitioner at the relevant time. For conducting thorough and proper investigation in the matter and for recovery of stolen batteries, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is must. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

7. The petitioner is alleged to have stolen six batteries belonging to the company of the complainant from a tower located at village Naushera. Though, he had not been seen by the complainant while committing theft of the batteries, however, as per the allegations, the batteries were being taken in a vehicle which was used by the petitioner. The petitioner was named in the FIR. For the purpose of conducting proper investigation in the matter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. In case his custodial interrogation is denied to the Investigating Agency, that will leave many glaring loopholes and gaps thereby adversely affecting the investigation. The powers of anticipatory bail are extra ordinary and the same are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. The Court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail and it should not be granted as a matter of rule and has to be granted only when the Court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extra ordinary remedy. In the present case, no such exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the powers for grant of anticipatory bail by this Court are existing. Keeping in view the gravity of allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail