Manpreet Singh @ Mani Ghnda Vs State of Punjab

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of t h e Bharatiya N a garik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s e eking concession of anticipato r y bail in FIR N o. 30 dated 18.02.2026 registe r ed under Sections 311 & 310 ( 2 ) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 397 and 395 IPC), registered a t Police Statio n Ajitwal, District Moga. 2. Learned counsel for the petitio n er contends that no specific rol e , attribution o r overt act has been assigned to the petitioner in the FIR and th a t the allegatio n s levelled against him are va g ue and omnibus in nature. It i s further sub m itted that there is a delay of tw o days in lodging the FIR, whi c h casts doubt on the prosecution case. Le a rned counsel submits that t h e petitioner is innocent, is ready and willing t o join the investigation, and the r e is no likelih o od of his absconding, influen c ing witnesses or tampering wi t h the evidence. Therefore, the petitioner dese r ves to be granted the concessi o n of anticipato r y bail.

¶14

ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.06.09 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRM-M-31857-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶16

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is contended that the petitioner, along with his co-accused, intercepted the complainant during the night hours and, by brandishing a sharp-edged weapon, snatched two mobile phones, cash amounting to ₹2,500, and the complainant’s Aadhaar Card. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has been specifically named by the complainant in his statement and his involvement also finds mention in the disclosure statement of coaccused Ranjit Singh @ Gora. It is further submitted that two accused persons have already been arrested, while the arrest of the petitioner and two other coaccused is yet to be effected and the investigation is still in progress. Learned State counsel contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in four other criminal cases besides the present one. It is further argued that the recovery of the snatched articles is yet to be effected and the involvement of the remaining co-accused persons is still under investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation, recovery of the snatched articles and unearthing the complete chain of events. On these grounds, it is prayed that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail at this stage.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The scope of consideration in a petition for anticipatory bail is limited to examining whether, on the basis of the material available, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of the extraordinary relief of prearrest bail. At this stage, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or record findings on the merits of the allegations.

¶19

ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.06.09 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-31857-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶21

The allegations in the present case pertain to the commission of a robbery/snatching offence wherein the petitioner has been specifically named by the complainant and his involvement also finds mention in the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The material placed before the Court prima facie indicates the petitioner's participation in the occurrence under investigation.

¶22

Offences involving robbery and snatching are not merely offences against an individual victim but are offences against society at large, having a direct bearing on public order and the sense of security of citizens. Such offences, by their very nature, are required to be viewed seriously, particularly when the investigation is still in progress and the complete circumstances surrounding the occurrence are yet to be unearthed.

¶23

The investigating agency has stated that the recovery of the snatched articles is yet to be effected and that further investigation is required with regard to the role of the petitioner and other persons involved in the occurrence. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be said to be unwarranted at this stage.

¶24

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the material collected so far, this Court finds no exceptional circumstance warranting the grant of the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

¶25

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

08.06.2026 Atul

¶28

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether reportable Yes/No

¶29

ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.06.09 20:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manpreet Singh @ Mani Ghnda v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Singh @ Mani Ghnda v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ehc Parmod Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ehc Sunil Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ehc Pawan Kumar No 505 Pwl Vs 1 State of Haryana

Jaskaran Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gajraj Vs State of Haryana

Gurjant Singh Vs State of Punjab through Secretary Department of Home Affairs Punjab