Kanchanpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0240 dated 23.10.2025, under Sections 351(2), 353(1), 353(2), 174 and 61(2) BNS, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 338, 336, 339, 340(2), 224, 319(2) of BNS, 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

¶16

On 18.02.2026, following order was passed:-

¶17

“ The instant petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (438 of Cr.P.C.), has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0240 dated 23.10.2025, registered under Sections 351(2),353(1), 353(2), 174 and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Act, 2000, (Sections 338, 336, 339, 340(2), 224, 319(2) of BNS, 2023 added later on) at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political vendetta. It is further contended that the co-accused, namely Paramjit Singh, Puran Singh, and Sandeep Singh, have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, vide order dated

¶19

PRIYANKA 2026.07.09 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

Page 1 of 3 Pages

¶21

CRM-M-9339-2026

¶22

31.01.2026.The petitioner herself was also granted interim bail; however, she could not join the investigation as FIR No.144 dated 08.11.2025, FIR No.128 dated 11.11.2025, and FIR No.261 dated 15.11.2025 have been subsequently registered against her during that period. It is further contended that in the aforesaid subsequent FIRs, she has been granted interim bail. The allegation against the petitioner in the present case is that she circulated a video allegedly created by her husband, who is residing in Canada, in connection with the Assembly by-election of Tarn Taran, where the petitioner’s mother was contesting as a candidate. Learned counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail as the petitioner is now ready and willing to join the investigation.

¶23

Notice of motion.

¶24

Mr. P.I.P. Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab, accepted notice on behalf of respondent State and submitted that the petitioner actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence and circulated a video with the intent to create fear in the minds of voters so as to dissuade them from casting their votes. He further contended that the petitioner is also involved in the forgery of documents, alleging that her husband tampered with his matriculation certificate and Aadhaar Card for the purpose of obtaining a visa. He submits that petitioner’s custodial interrogation is required.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

Keeping in view the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, and considering that the co-accused, whose cases are on similar footing, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail, and that the petitioner was also granted interim bail but could not join the investigation due to the registration of subsequent FIRs against her, as stated by her counsel, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail on furnishing personal bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer till the next date of hearing subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). Adjourned to 23.04.2026.”

¶27

Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in compliance of the order dated 18.02.2026, passed by this Court, petitioner has joined the investigation, and has fully co-operated.

¶28

PRIYANKA 2026.07.09 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

Page 2 of 3 Pages

¶30

CRM-M-9339-2026

¶31

Therefore, he prays for confirmation of the said interim anticipatory bail order.

¶32

Learned State counsel, on instructions, confirms the said averment made by counsel for the petitioner of joining the investigation by the petitioner, and submits that as of now, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

Since, petitioner has already joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no more required; ad-interim bail order dated 18.02.2026, passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.

¶35

However, petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

¶36

Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.

¶37

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

¶38

08.07.2026 pry

¶39

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/ NO Whether Reportable: YES /NO

¶40

PRIYANKA 2026.07.09 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

Page 3 of 3 Pages

Kanchanpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchanpreet Kaur 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

Sharvan Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics

Randheer Singh Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gautam Alias Shivam Arya Vs State of Punjab

Amardeep Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Surjit Singh@Sonu Vs State of Punjab