Navjot Kaur @ Nav v. State of Punjab

IN Navjot Ka

State of P

Date of d Date of U CORAM Present:

SUMEET

¶1Bharatiya BNSS') f bearing punishabl Mehta, Di

arrest/anti on 02.04.2

of anticip

27.05.202

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG

aur @ Nav

V/s Punjab

decision: 14.07.2026 Uploading : 15.07.2026 M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AA ***** T GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition is the se a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of pre-arrest/anticipat FIR No.141 dated 30.11.202 le under Sections 25(6), 25(8) o istrict Amritsar (Rural). The petitioner had earlie icipatory bail before this Court w 2026. The relevant part of said o "2. Learned counsel appearin sometime, seeks to withdraw the p

¶3Ordered accordingly." Thereafter, the present petitio patory/pre-arrest bail has been

26.

NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH

CRM-M-31951-2026

....Petitioner

....Respondent SUMEET GOEL e for the petitioner. AG Punjab. econd attempt under Section 482 3 (hereinafter to be referred as ' tory bail to the petitioner in ca 25, registered for the offenc of the Arms Act at Police Stati er applied for grant of p which was dismissed as withdra order reads as under:- ng for the petitioner, after arguing petition in hand. on i.e. the second petition for gr n preferred by the petitioner

2 of ase ces pre-wn for ant

¶2secret info Singh @ ammuniti constitute motorcycl Kimber C cartridges in questi interrogat which led

¶3her impli accused. effected f of call de or stateme crime. Le aged abo relationsh main accu therefore, custodial and there

The FIR in the present cas ormation received by the police @ Bunty was engaged in the on. Acting upon the said in ed and the accused was app le. Upon search, one foreign-m Commando Model" .30 bore alo s were recovered from his consc ion came to be registered. D tion, the arrested accused allege d to the nomination of several o r Navjot Kaur, wife of co-accused Learned counsel for the r was neither named in the FIR n cation rests solely on the basis Learned counsel has further it from the petitioner and there is n etail records (CDR), financial tr ent(s) of independent witnesses w earned counsel has further conte out 29 years and has been im hip with co-accused Ranjodh S used has already been arrested an no useful purpose would be ser interrogation. Moreover, the p is no likelihood of her abscondin

se was registered on the basis to the effect that accused Baljind e supply of illicit weapons a nformation, a raiding party w prehended while travelling on made pistol bearing mark "CO ong with a magazine and three l cious possession. Accordingly, F During the course of custod edly suffered disclosure stateme other persons including the pres d Ranjodh Singh @ Bablu. petitioner has iterated that nor apprehended from the spot a s of disclosure statement(s) of c terated that no recovery has be no independent material in the fo ransactions, documentary eviden which connect her with the alleg ended that the petitioner is a la mplicated only on account of h Singh @ Bablu. Furthermore, nd the weapon has been recover rved by subjecting the petitioner petitioner has deep roots in soci ng or influencing the investigati

of der was n a LT ive FIR dial ents ent co-een orm nce ged ady her ed; r to ety It has be investigat enlarged instant pe

¶4anticipato maintaina there bein procedura the first p Court and counsel h alone. On arguing th as the inv larger ne weapons. nominated collected necessary destinatio racket. Gi conduct o concessio the dismis

een further argued that the p tion and cooperate therein as a on bail. On the strength of th etition is entreated for. Per contra, learned State c ory bail to the petitioner by argu able, as it constitutes a second pe ng any substantial change in circ al grounds and on merits. Learne petition was dismissed as with d neither any prayer was made r to file afresh with better par has argued that the instant petitio n merits, learned State counsel h hat the allegations raised agains vestigation has disclosed the in etwork concerning the procure It has been further contend d during the course of invest by the investigating agency a y for unearthing the entire co on of illegal weapons and identif iven the gravity of the offence of the trial, it is prayed that th on of anticipatory bail. Accordi ssal of the petition in hand.

petitioner is willing to join and when required in case she hese submissions, the grant of counsel has opposed the grant uing that the present petition is n etition for anticipatory bail, witho cumstances, thereby failing both ed State counsel has submitted t hdrawn on 02.04.2026 before t nor was any liberty granted to rticulars. Accordingly, the St on deserves dismissal on this sco has opposed the present petition st the petitioner are grave in natu nvolvement of the petitioner in ement and transmission of illi ded that the petitioner has be tigation on the basis of mater and her custodial interrogation onspiracy, tracing the source a fying other persons involved in and the potential threat to the f he petitioner does not deserve ingly, a prayer has been made

e is of not out on hat this tate ore by ure n a icit een rial n is fair

¶5gone throu

¶6this Cour RCR(Crim

I have heard the learned cou ugh the available record of the c It would be apposite to refe rt in a titled as Bhisham Sing minal) 65, relevant whereof read "11.

As an epilogue to principles emerge: I Second/successive Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 19 petition ought not to b maintainability thereof. II Such second/succ maintainable whether withdrawn/dismissed as no or earlier petition was dism III For the second/su succeed, the petitioner/ap required to show subst showing of a mere supe suffice. IV No exhaustive gui what would constitute su every case has its own u this issue is best left to th Court dealing with suc petition(s). V In case a Cour anticipatory bail petitio pertinently required to be such a plea being second cause for countenanced/entertained ought to be readily and c passed. VI Once a plea for a withdrawn/dismissed as no

unsel for the rival parties and ha case. er herein to a judgment passed gh vs. State of Haryana, 2024 ds as under:- o the above rumination, the follow anticipatory bail petition(s) filed un 973 is maintainable in law & hence s be rejected solely on the ground cessive anticipatory bail petition(s) earlier petition was dismissed ot pressed/dismissed for non-prosecut missed on merits. uccessive anticipatory bail petition(s) pplicant shall be essentially/pertinen tantial change in circumstances a rficial or ostensible change would idelines can possibly be laid down as ubstantial change in circumstances unique facts/circumstance. According he judicial wisdom and discretion of ch second/successive anticipatory b rt chooses to grant second/success on(s), cogent and lucid reasons recorded for granting such plea desp d/successive petition(s). In other wor a Court having successfu d such second/successive petition clearly decipherable from the said or anticipatory bail has been dismissed ot pressed/dismissed for non-prosecut

ave by 4(3) wing nder uch of ) is as tion ) to ntly not s to as gly, f the bail sive are pite rds, fully n(s) rder d as

¶7anticipato indeed m substantia propositio superficia that the re filings bu initial ass i.e. second

27.05.202 forward w second p conspectu circumsta the secon bail petiti merits the merits the

¶8serious al allegation

or dismissed on merits by anticipatory bail petition Court." The present petition is a ory bail by the petitioner. A se maintainable under law; howeve al change in circumstances since on of law that such a change m al or technical, to warrant recon emedy of successive bail petition ut is available when new and m sessment of the case. The fir r was dismissed as withdrawn on d petition for grant of anticipato

¶26No fresh substantial change which would indicate that the pe petition for grant of anticipato us brought forward in the pres ance is made out so as to enable nd anticipatory bail petition. Ho ion was dismissed as withdrawn ereof, this Court deems it appro ereof as well. As per the case put forth in llegations have been levelled a ns, the FIR in question was re

y the High Court, no second/success n(s) shall be entertained by a Sessi a second petition for grant econd anticipatory bail petition er, it requires demonstration o e the earlier petition. It is a sett must be significant and not mer nsideration. This standard ensu ns is not misused through repea material factors arise that alter rst anticipatory bail filed by n 02.04.2026. The instant petiti ory bail has been filed thereafter e in circumstance has been broug etitioner is entitled to maintain ory bail. From the entire fact sent petition, no fresh ground e the petitioner to file and maint owever, since the first anticipato n and there was no adjudication opriate to decide the instant one n the FIR in question, indubitab against the petitioner. As per egistered on the basis of a sec

sive ions of n is f a led ely ures ted on ght his ual or tain ory on on bly, informatio recovery Governme The prese statement otherwise this stage recovery name surf movemen affecting circulation consequen merely be stage. The yet to be bail, is n evidentiar the invest of the pet supply of the allege from the grant of a adversely complete

on wherein co-accused Baljind of one foreign made pist ent Model' .30 bore alongwith ent petitioner came to be nom t made by co-accused during t e, the allegations against the pet e. Although the petitioner was has been effected from her but faced during the course of inves nt and supply of illicit weapons. public order and public saf n of firearms constitute serio nces for Society. The plea that ecause she is the wife of a co-a e investigation is still in progres unearthed. The Court, while co not expected to undertake a ry value of the material collected tigating agency before this Cour titioner may be required for trac f illegal weapons as also for ide ed conspiracy. The contention t petitioner also does not advan anticipatory bail, at this stage, m y affect the efforts of the invest ramifications of the crime. An

der Singh was apprehended a ol 'COLT Kimber Comman three live cartridges was effect minated on the basis of disclosu the course of investigation. Ev titioner cannot be brushed aside s not named in the FIR and t the investigation reflects that h stigation engaged in facilitating . The allegations relate to offenc fety. The illegal trafficking a ous offences having far-reachi the petitioner has been implica accused cannot be accepted at t ss and extent of her involvement onsidering a prayer for anticipato meticulous examination of d during investigation. The stand rt is that the custodial interrogati cing the chain of procurement a entifying other persons involved that no recovery is to be effec ce the case of the petitioner. T may impede the investigation a tigating agency in uncovering nother circumstance which weig

ndo ted. ure ven e at her ces ing ted this t is ory d of d in ted The with this Though a relevant f NDPS Ac

¶9Given the Court is o anticipato opinion o may serio tampering to mentio the Court protecting and nature and free i iniquities that prima which ha establish not appro necessaril Sharma, held as un

Court is the criminal anteced antecedents alone may not be de factor while considering the plea r is stated to have been involved ct. The contention that no reco r does not, by itself, entitled her t e seriousness of the offence an of the view that the petitioner d ory bail in the factual milieu of t of this Court, the grant of anticip ously prejudice the ongoing inv g with evidence or influencing th on here that while considering a t has to equilibrate between s g societal interest(s). The Court o e of the offence; the role attribut investigation as also the deeper on the society. At this stage, the a facie case is not made out ag as come on record and prelim a reasonable basis for the accus opriate to grant anticipatory ba ly cause impediment in effectiv

(1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC nder : (SCC p.189, para 6)

dents attributed to the petition ecisive factor but they constitut a for grant of anticipatory bail. T d in other criminal case under overy has been effected from to the concession of pre-arrest b nd the stage of investigation, t does not deserve the concession the case in hand. In the consider patory bail at this premature sta estigation and potentially result he material witnesses. It is befitti plea for grant of anticipatory b afeguarding individual rights a ought to reckon with the magnitu ted to the accused; the need for f r and wide impact of such alleg ere is no material on record to ho gainst the petitioner. The mater minary investigation, appear to sation of the petitioner. Thus, it ail to the petitioner, as it wou ve investigation. In State v. A C (Cri) 1039], the Supreme Co

ner. e a The ail. this n of red age t in ing ail, ude fair ged old rial be t is uld Anil

¶10milieu of The prese

¶11of opinion

12.

July 14, 2 Ajay

"6. We find force in the submissi qualitatively more elicitation-orient well-ensconced with a favourable or case like this, effective interrogation advantage in disinterring many usefu would have been concealed. Success suspected person knows that he is arrest bail order during the time he in such a condition would reduce t custodial interrogation is fraught subjected to third-degree methods n argument can be advanced by all a has to presume that responsible poli a responsible manner and that thos offences would not conduct themselve Accordingly, this Court is o r does not deserve the concession f the case in hand. Moreove r is necessary for an effective in ent petition is, thus, devoid of me Nothing said hereinabove sh n upon merits of the case/investig Pending application(s), if any

2026

ion of CBI that custodial interrogation ted than questioning a suspect who rder under Section 438 of the Code. I n of a suspected person is of tremend ul informations and also materials wh s in such interrogation would elude if well protected and insulated by a p is interrogated. Very often interrogat to a mere ritual. The argument that with the danger of the person be need not be countenanced, for, such ccused in all criminal cases. The Co ice officers would conduct themselves e entrusted with the task of disinterr es as offenders." of the considered opinion that n of anticipatory bail in the fact er, custodial interrogation of nvestigation & to unravel the tru erits and is hereby dismissed. hall be deemed to be an expressi gation. y, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

n is o is In a dous hich f the pre-tion eing an ourt s in ring ual