Mohinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

IN 233-3 Mohinder State of P Date of d Date of U CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1seeking g 2023 in punishabl and Sectio Banga, Di

¶2on 17.11 Maan wa Harpreet S Phagwara that his b reached n 20 car all brother dr the car of THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

r Kaur

V/s Punjab

decision: 09.07.2026 Uploading : 09.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate f Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG Pu ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest b FIR No.122 dated 18.11.20 le under Sections 103, 109, 324 ons 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arm istrict SBS Sagar. The prosecution case, as set- .2025, the complainant namely as present at his shop. At abo Singh alias Honey Bal along wit a in his Scorpio car. It has been brother Harpreet Singh honey w near Ritha Ram School, some pe egedly opened fire on his broth rove the car towards Banga Bus f his brother got struck in traffic

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-13907-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. unjab. filed on behalf of the petition bail under Section 482 of BNS 025, registered for the offenc 4(4), 190, 191(3), 351, 61 of BN ms Act, 1959 at Police Station C -out in the petition in hand, is t y Pawandeep Singh alias Bab out 03:00 PM, his brother nam th his associates was going towa further alleged by the complain was driving the car and when th ersons who were travelling in an er and in an attempt to escape, Stand area. Owing to heavy traff c jam and the assailants, thereaft

ner SS, ces NS City hat bbu ely rds ant hey n i-ffic, fter,

intercepte As a cons and two p (brother o initially r persons w course of were reco an alterca has furthe a meeting conspirac and Sahil the memb Singh wh committed the basis accused in

¶3petitioner Learned c in the FI occurrenc aged 61-y the incide her nomi ed the vehicle and indiscriminate sequence of the firing, multiple persons i.e., Rimplejit Singh an of FIR-complainant) succumbe registered against Ajay Kumar who had actively participated in investigation, statements of the orded and it has surfaced that prio ation between Sahil Bholu and t er surfaced that on 17.11.2025, a g alongwith his associates at K y was allegedly hatched to attac Bholu. As per the prosecution, bers of the gang allegedly being ho, in furtherance of their co d firing upon the brother of the c of such material, the petition n the present case. Learned counsel for the r is innocent and has been falsely counsel has further iterated that IR and no overt act has been ce. Learned counsel has empha year-old having no criminal ante ent in any manner whatsoever. ination is solely on the basis

ely fired gunshots at its occupan persons sustained firearm injur nd Harpreet Singh alias Honey B ed to their injuries. The FIR w and certain other accused as n the attack. However, during complainant and injured witnes or to the occurrence there had be the accused side on 15.11.2025 accused Ajay Kumar had conven Kashmiri Dhaba, Mazari, where ck Harpreet Singh alias Honey B the petitioner was in contact w g run by her son namely Gurde ommon intention and conspira complainant and other persons. ner came to be nominated as petitioner has iterated that y implicated in the FIR in questi the petitioner has not been nam n attributed to her in the ent asized that the petitioner is a la ecedents and is not connected w It has been further contended t of subsequent statement of

nts. ries Bal was ses een . It ned e a Bal with eep acy, On an on. med tire ady with

complaina supported is no alleg recovery establish a to learned the mothe pressure custodial be recove Learned c investigat influence she is enl resident o to join i submissio

¶4anticipato are seriou of an affi Division B during th through involveme complaina ant which is neither corroborate d by any tangible evidence. It ha gation that the petitioner was pre is to be effected from her and any active participation on her p d counsel, the petitioner has been er of accused Gurdeep Singh a upon her son by her arrest. F interrogation of the petitioner a ered from her and all the mat counsel has further asserted tha tion as and when required, sh any witness, and shall abide by larged on pre-arrest bail. Moreo of her village; suffering from ag nvestigation as and when req ons, the grant of anticipatory bail Per contra, learned State c ory bail to the petitioner by argu us in nature. Referring to the stat davit of Harjit Singh, PPS, Dep Banga, District SBS Nagar, lear e course of investigation the r the statements of material ent in the criminal conspirac ant party. The relevant part of th

ed by any independent material n as been further contended that th esent at the place of occurrence, no material has been produced part in the alleged crime. Accordi n implicated merely because she and the prosecution seeks to ex Furthermore, there is no need as nothing incriminating remains erial facts are already on reco at the petitioner is willing to jo hall not tamper with evidence y all the conditions imposed in ca over, the petitioner is a perman ge-related ailments and undertak quired. On the strength of the l is entreated for. counsel has opposed the grant uing that the allegations against h tus report dated 25.04.2026 by w puty Superintendent of Police, S rned State counsel has iterated t role of the petitioner has surfac witnesses, which disclose h cy allegedly hatched against he status report reads thus:

nor ere d to ing e is xert for s to ord. oin or ase ent kes ese of her way Sub hat ced

State coun there is a influence the allega counsel pr "ROLE OF PETITIONER:

¶7That the deponent humbl specifically named in the supplem well as in the statement of the oth investigation, it has been reveale in operating the group headed Deepa. It is further submitted th Section 307, 506, 120-B, 34 of already stands registered agai Mahilpur, and during the inves revealed that the petitioner was group and was managing and o other members. It has further com manage the ransom amount illega distribute the same as per the dire @ Deepa, who is one of the accu of supplementary statement of th Annexure R1/T. CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS OF

¶8That the deponent humbly subm petitioner, it has been revealed t (supra), the petitioner is also fo criminal case: Sr. No. Detail of the case/FIR

¶1FIR No. 35 dated 04.0 Section 307, 506, 120- & Section 25(6), 27 of Mahilpur, District Hosh

Raising submission in tandem nsel has submitted that in view a strong likelihood that if rele or intimidate the prosecution w ations, the gravity of the offence rays for the dismissal of the insta

ly submits that the petitioner has b mentary statement of the complainant her injured persons. During the course ed that the petitioner is actively invol by her son, namely Gurdeep Singh hat FIR No. 35 dated 04.03.2024, un IPC, & Section 25(6), 27 of Arms inst the petitioner at Police Stat stigation of the said case also, it w in contact with the members of the s operating the same in connivance w me on record that the petitioner used ally collected by the group members a ections of her son namely Gurdeep Sin used in the present case. Translated c he complainant is annexed herewith PETITIONER: mits from the verification of record of that apart from the present FIR No. 1 found to be involved in following ot Status of the case/FI

03.2024, under - B, 34 of IPC, f Arms Act, PS hiarpur. Trial is going on

m with the aforesaid reply, learn w of the seriousness of the offen eased on bail, the petitioner m witnesses. In view of the nature and the stage of trial learned St ant petition.

been t as e of lved @ nder Act tion was said with d to and ngh opy h as f the ther IR ned nce, may e of

¶5perused th

¶6collected not name suppleme the FIR reflects th allegedly the compl resulted i others. Th and heino question b merely o investigat members them. Wh trial; how to meticu see whet interrogat which pr seriousnes and surro knowledg I have heard learned couns he available record. As per the case put forth in th during the course of investigati ed in the FIR and her involve ntary statement. The factual ma and the material collected du hat the occurrence in question i executed by a group of armed as lainant party and opened indiscr in the death of two individual he nature and manner of the off ous crime. Though the petition but his subsequent nomination ca on that ground. The material tion indicates that the petitione and was instrumental in mai hether these allegations are ultim wever, at the stage of consideratio ulously examine the evidentiary ther a prima facie case is tion. The occurrence is alleged ima facie indicates concerted a ss of the offence is to be assess ounding circumstances and t ge to cause death is sufficien

sel for the rival parties and ha he FIR in question and the mater ion, indubitably, the petitioner w ement surfaced subsequently in atrix of the case, as emerging fro uring the course of investigati is a broad daylight firing incid ssailants who chased the vehicle riminate fire in a public area wh ls and serious firearm injuries fence, at this stage, reflect a gra ner was not named in the FIR annot be brushed aside at this sta collected during the course er was in contact with the ga intaining communication amon mately proved or not is a matter on of bail, this Court is not requir value of such material but only made out warranting custod to have taken place in a mann action. It is well-settled that sed on the basis of the allegatio the act done with intention nt. It is settled law that wh

ave rial was n a om on, ent e of ich to ave in age of ang ngst r of red y to dial ner ons or

considerin balance b fair and ef

¶7of the ma accepted investigat cause nay be deciph FIR. Fur petitioner levelled a considerin between s Court oug attributed deeper an stage, the made out the prelim accusation petitioner investigat 1039, the ng the plea for grant of anticipa between the right of the individu ffective investigation. The contention that the petit ain accused and has been implic at this stage. The statements tion specifically attribute an ind y plausible cause has been show hered that the petitioner has been rthermore, the Court below has r after considering the relevant against the petitioner. It is bef ng a plea for grant of anticipator safeguarding individual rights an ght to reckon with the magnitude d to the accused; the need for fai nd wide impact of such alleged ere is no material on record to against the petitioner. The mate minary investigation, appears to e ns. Thus, it is not appropriate r, as it would necessarily tion. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as "6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orie well-ensconced with a favourable

atory bail, the Court must strik ual to liberty and the need for fr tioner is merely the mother of o cated on that basis alone cannot s recorded during the course ependent role to the petitioner. wn, at this stage, from which it c n falsely implicated into the pres s already declined the plea of factors, including the allegatio fitting to mention here that wh ry bail, the Court has to equilibr nd protecting societal interests. T e and nature of the offence; the r ir and free investigation as also d iniquities on the society. At t hold that prima facie case is n erial which has come on record a establish a reasonable basis for to grant anticipatory bail to cause impediment in effect 1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (C under : (SCC p. 189, para 6) ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ented than questioning a suspect who e order under Section 438 of the Code

e a ree, one be of can ent ons hile rate The ole this not and ive Cri) n is o is

¶8role attrib interrogat Court is o juncture m petitioner milieu of

9.

(i)

(ii) of opinion

(iii)

July 09, 2 Ajay

a case like this, effective inter tremendous advantage in disinter materials which would have interrogation would elude if the protected and insulated by a pre interrogated. Very often interroga a mere ritual. The argument tha with the danger of the person b need not be countenanced, for, su accused in all criminal cases. Th police officers would conduct th would not conduct themselves as o Considering the nature and g buted to the petitioner and t tion of the petitioner for an eff of the considered view that the may adversely affect the course r does not deserve the concession the case in hand. In view of the prevenient rati The instant petition is devoid Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

rrogation of a suspected person is rring many useful informations and a been concealed. Success in s suspected person knows that he is w e-arrest bail order during the time he ation in such a condition would reduce at the custodial interrogation is frau being subjected to third-degree meth uch an argument can be advanced by he Court has to presume that responsi hemselves in task of disintering offen offenders." gravity of the offence, the speci the requirement of the custod ffective and fair investigation, t e grant of anticipatory bail at t of investigation. Accordingly, n of anticipatory bail in the fact iocination, it is ordained thus: d of merits and is hereby dismiss hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

s of also uch well e is e to ught ods y all ible nces ific dial this this ual sed.