Simranjit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab

By virtue of the present petition under Section 482 BNSS, petitioners, who are accused in case bearing FIR No.002 dated 02.01.2026 registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 BNS (Sections 117(2), 118(2) BNS added later on) at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, have prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶17

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Lakhwinder Singh, submits that petitioners have joined the investigation and are not needed for further investigation.

¶18

On 10.02.2026, following order was passed by this Court:-

¶19

“Petitioners, who are accused in case FIR No. 002 dated 02.01.2026, registered against them under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS (Sections 117(2), 118(2) of BNS added later on), at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, have filed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Incident did not occur as portrayed by the complainant. False allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and their family members only with a view to harass them and to extract illegal monetary benefit from them. Continuing further, learned counsel contends that even if the allegations as levelled by the complainant party are taken to be true, at its face value (though

¶21

HAMANT 2026.03.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-7720-2026

¶23

2

¶24

not admitted), the only role attributed to the petitioners is that they caught hold of complainant when co-accused Rajinder Singh @ Raju inflicted blows upon the complainant. It is further the submission of learned counsel that in view of the role played by both the petitioners, though their custodial interrogation is not needed but still they being law abiding citizens are ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer.

¶25

Heard. Documents perused.

¶26

Notice of motion.

¶27

Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and prays for time to file status report.

¶28

In view of submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners, petitioners are hereby directed to join investigation within seven days from today and co-operate in the same. In the event of the arrest of petitioners, they shall be released on interim bail on their furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/ Investigating Officer. They shall also abide by conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS.

¶29

List on 24.3.2026.”

¶30

Keeping in view the fact that petitioners have joined the investigation, interim bail granted vide order dated 10.02.2026 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) BNSS. Further the petitioners are directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioners; they will neither tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and nor will leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶31

The petition stands allowed.

¶32

	(AARADHN JU	A SAWHNEY) DGE
24.03.2026
Hemant
	Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes	/ No
	Whether reportable : Yes	/ No

¶33

HAMANT 2026.03.25 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Simranjit Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simranjit Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil @ Abid Vs State of Haryana

Meharwan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagir Masih @ Kali Vs State of Punjab

Saneha and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ajay Sharma Vs State of Punjab