IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28387-2026 Date of decision: 19.05.2026 Anshdeep Singh @ Anshpreet Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present :- Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.0092 dated 26.04.2026, under Sections 304, 191(3) and 190 of the BNS (Section 317(2) of the BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the FIR has been lodged on the statement of Gulshan Kumar son of Krishan Kumar. It was alleged that he is driver of vehicle bearing registration no.PB-03-BB-6456 belonging to Jasvir Singh S/o Beant Singh. It was alleged that on 26.04.2026, he was going from Moga to Dera Baba Beas to attend the congregation (sangat). At about 10:00 AM when they were little behind village Dholewala then a man was being beaten up near the drug de- addiction center. When he slowed down the vehicle, those 5 men suddenly entered his vehicle and put the kirch on his neck and asked him to take the vehicle as per their direction. They took the vehicle near to village Daulewala and parked it on the embankment of the river and forcibly snatched his mobile phone having sim no.87288-09884 and purse containing Rs.2500/-. It was further alleged that after throwing him out of the vehicle, they also took away the same along with them. On inquiry about those persons, he came to know their names as Gurjit Singh armed with kirch, Gagandeep Singh, Dharamkot, Anshdeep Singh (petitioner), Laddi and Jagsir Singh. Request was made to take legal action against the accused persons. Thus, the FIR was registered and investigation commenced. Apprehending arrest, petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Moga praying for grant of anticipatory bail. However, after hearing counsel for both the sides, the same was declined vide order dated 02.05.2026. Hence, being aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has submitted that although the petitioner has been named in the FIR, no specific role has been attributed to him in the alleged occurrence. He has submitted that neither the petitioner was apprehended on the spot nor any incriminating article has been recovered from him. He has submitted that the alleged vehicle and kirch have already been recovered from co-accused namely, Gagandeep Singh, Gurjit Singh and Jagsir Singh, who have already been arrested by the police. He thus, has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no prima facie case as alleged is made out against the petitioner and hence, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Ekompal Sagoo, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State.

6. Learned State counsel has however, vehemently opposed the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that the offence alleged in the present case is serious in nature. He has submitted that as per the FIR, when the complainant was going from Moga to Dera Baba Beas to attend the congregation and slowed down the vehicle near the de-addiction centre, where five persons were allegedly beating a man and thereafter, entered the vehicle, one of whom has been stated to be the present petitioner, which prima facie indicates his involvement in the occurrence. He has submitted that the petitioner along with co-accused had snatched mobile phone, purse containing Rs.2500/- and vehicle from the complainant by putting a kirch on his neck. Though recovery of vehicle and kirch has been effected, the recovery of remaining snatched articles and mobile phone is yet to be effected. Thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of a