IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.02.2026 AMANDEEP @ AMAN ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA ****

Present: Mr. Davinder Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANISHA BATRA , J. (ORAL)

1. 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 a case arising out of FIR No.0007 dated 10.01.2026, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint sent by the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, alleging that the present petitioner had been extended the benefit of bail in case arising out of FIR No.68 dated 24.06.2023, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahar, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. An order to this effect was passed on 24.07.2023. At the time of furnishing surety bonds, one Amrik Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh, resident of village Kaul Talwandi, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, stood as surety and was identified by Satnam Singh, Numberdar of village Kaul Talwandi, District Kapurthala.

3. The petitioner subsequently absented himself. Proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated against him and he was declared a proclaimed offender. It was thereafter revealed that the surety furnished on his behalf was a fake one and that some other person had impersonated Amrik Singh, whose name was mentioned in the surety bonds. It was alleged that the petitioner had acted in connivance with the impersonator to secure his release.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated and are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, vide order dated 03.02.2026.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he has been wrongly implicated in the present case. It is submitted that he was in custody in some other case at that point of time when the surety bonds were furnished on his behalf, he had no knowledge as to whether the surety so furnished was a fake one. His complicity in the alleged crime has not been established at all. He is ready to join the investigation. His custodial interrogation is not required and no recovery is to be effected from him. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Notice of motion.

7. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, learned Senior DAG, Punjab, accepts advance notice on behalf of the respondent-

State and is ready to address arguments.

8. It is argued by learned State counsel that the petitioner is a habitual offender and in connivance with certain impersonators, he managed to secure his release on bail by furnishing fake surety bonds and producing false documents. There are serious allegations against the petitioner. In order to ascertain the whereabouts of the impersonators, who appeared as surety and identifier, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. It is, therefore, stressed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

10. The petitioner, while being in custody in some other case, after passing of the order granting him bail, allegedly entered into a conspiracy with certain persons, in pursuance whereof, fake surety bonds were furnished to secure his release from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The allegations against the petitioner are quite serious in nature. For the purpose of conducting proper and thorough investigation in the matter and to reveal the actual names and addresses of the persons, who appeared as s