[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2026

CRM-M No.8088 of 2026 (O&M)                   1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

209                                   CRM-M No.8088 of 2026 (O&M)
                                      Date of Decision:18.03.2026

Amandeep Kaur
                                                    ......Petitioner
                                 Versus

State of Punjab
                                                    ...... Respondent

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present:     Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

For the benefit of anticipatory bail, the instant petition has been

filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita 2023, in a case arising out of the FIR No.134 dated 13.12.2025,

under Sections 109, 111, 61(2) 3(5) [Sections 253 and 308(2) added later

on] of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of Arms Act, Police

Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR

of this case came into being At the instance of 'Darshan Singh' son of 'Bhan

Singh', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant', only. It was stated by

the complainant that on 12.12.2025 at about 6.00 P.M. he went to his cattle

shed to serve fodder to his buffaloes, and milk them. As per complainant there

three young boys with muffled faces arrived on a motorcycle inquired about

his name and address, and then one of them picked-up a pistol from his

waistband and fired 4-5 gun-shots with an intention to kill him. According to

1 of 6

complainant one of the shot hit his stomach and thereafter the assailants fled

from the spot.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned

complaint the formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation

taken. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of

investigation statement of 'Tarsem Singh' son of complainant was recorded.

It was stated by the above named witness that his brother 'Gurdial Singh'

was residing in the USA, and that when 'Gurdial Singh' came to know about

the incident, he told him that he had received a phone call from 'Goldy

Dhillon', who claimed himself to be a gangster and demanded a ransom of

Rs.1 crore. According to above named witness the above named 'Goldy

Dhillon' has also instructed 'Gurdial Singh' to pay money to his relative

namely 'Mohinder Singh', 'Amarjit Singh', 'Manptreet Singh' and

'Amandeep Kaur' (petitioner herein), and threatened that in case ransom

was not paid the family members of 'Gurdial Singh' would be harmed. The

above named witness 'Tarsem Singh' also informed the police officials that

after the firing incident 'Goldy Dhillon' called 'Gurdial Singh' again and

stated that he had orchestrated the above mentioned firing incident, because

the money was not paid as per his instructions. It is the case of the

prosecution that in view of above mentioned statement the name of

petitioner was introduced in the present case.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner

is innocent having no nexus whatsoever with the commission of crime, and

2 of 6

that she is an old aged lady having no criminal antecedents. According to

learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner is being harassed only

because she is the mother of prime accused 'Goldy Dhillon', who is settled

abroad, and that except, for the statement of 'Tarsem Singh' there is no

other connecting evidence to implicate the petitioner in the commission of

crime. It has further been contended, by learned counsel for the petitioner,

that the petitioner, being a lady, deserves a lenient view.

6. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned

arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case the direct

nexus between the commission of crime and the petitioner is established

form the fact that after the incident the prime accused, who is settled in USA

had called the son of complainant and told him to pay ransom to his mother.

It has also been alleged by learned State counsel that there are allegations

against the petitioner that she had been instrumental in facilitating the attack

and harbouring the culprit. According to leaned State counsel in order to fix

the role of petitioner in the commission of crime, her custodial interrogation

is necessary.

7. The learned State counsel has contended that otherwise also this

fact cannot loose site that the son of petitioner is a well known gangsters,

who is operating from foreign soil but in order to execute his plan he has

tentacles in this country. As per learned State counsel the petitioner is one of

the tool which is being used by the main culprit for collection of money and

facilitating the attack to frighten the victims.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

3 of 6

9. At the very outset it is pertinent to mention that in the present

case the petitioner has approached this Court for the benefit of anticipatory

bail, which is an extraordinary remedy. With regard to parameters which

should be followed while dealing with a petition for anticipatory bail, the

requisite guiding principles have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of 'Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar' 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 282. In the above mentioned case it has been observed that power to

grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary power, and that irrespective of the

fact that in a number of cases, it has been held that bail is a rule, it cannot by

any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is a rule.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovementioned

case further observed that rule of anticipatory bail is a question of judicial

discretion depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

According to Hon'ble Apex Court, when called upon to exercise the

abovesaid power the Court concerned has to be very cautious, as the grant

of interim protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage

of justice and may hamper the investigation.

11. Similarly, in the case of 'Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita

Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another' (Special Leave

Petition (Criminal) No. 10255 of 2024, decided on 21.07.2024), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India has held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional

remedy and it ought not be granted in a routine manner. As per the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, there must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of

this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence.

4 of 6

12. In the case of 'Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. State of Punjab'

1980 SCC (2) 565, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-

(1) The power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only.

(2) In addition to the limitations mentioned in Section 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.

(3) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under Section 167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under Section 438 should not be exercised.

13. In the present case it is also relevant to note that over all facts

and circumstances of the present case shows that the complainant is the

victim of an organized crime, and the kingpin of the above mentioned racket

is operating from a foreign soil. Thus obviously the above mentioned

kingpin would be in contact with his operatives on the field, and in order to

establish the above discussed link it is necessary that opportunity should be

given to the investigating agency to interrogate the petitioner.

14. In the present case there are very specific and categorical

allegations against the petitioner that as per ransom call made by the prime

accused, the money was to be delivered through the petitioner. In addition to

5 of 6

above, there are also allegations against the petitioner that she was