Kamlesh Rani vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-61398-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

115 CRM-M-61398-2026

Kamlesh Rani
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of decision: 30.10.2026
Date of Uploading : 30.10.2026

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab .
*
SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is the third attempt under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the
BNSS’) for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case
bearing FIR No. 13 dated 21.01.2026, registered at Police Station Rama
Mandi, District Jalandhar for the offences mentioned therein under the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959.
The first petition for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail filed
before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.04.2026. The relevant
part of said order reads as under:-
“2. In view of above mentioned statement of learned counsel
for the petitioner, the present petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.”
Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred the second petition for
grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail before this Court which was also
AJAY KUMAR
2026.10.30 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61398-2026 2

dismissed as withdrawn on 15.10.2026. The relevant part of the said order
reads thus:
“2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing for

some time, seeks to withdraw the petition in hand.
3. Ordered accordingly”
2. The gravamen of the allegations, as borne out from the FIR, is
that on 21.01.2026, a police party headed by ASI Daljinder Lal was
conducting patrol and checking near the railway crossing of Arman Nagar,
on the turn towards village Dhannowali, within the jurisdiction of Police
Station Rama Mandi, Jalandhar. During the course of checking, the police
party noticed three young men who allegedly tried to flee away on seeing
the police. They were apprehended on suspicion and upon inquiry disclosed
their identities as Rajan alias Raja, Ajay Kumar alias Kalu and Prabhjit
Singh alias Prabhu. During search, a country-made pistol was allegedly
recovered from Rajan alias Raja. According to the further allegations in the
FIR, when Ajay Kumar alias Kalu raised an alarm, members of the family
of the apprehended persons and other individuals reached the spot. The
petitioner, Kamlesh Rani, is one of the persons named by the prosecution in
connection with the alleged incident. The prosecution has alleged that the
persons who arrived at the spot entered into an altercation and a scuffle with
the police party, assaulted police officials with bricks and stones and
forcibly rescued accused, namely, Rajan alias Raja and Ajay Kumar alias
Kalu from the police custody. It has been further alleged that Constable
Sukhmilap Singh and Constable Rajinder Pal Singh sustained injuries
during the course of occurrence. On these set of allegations, the FIR in
question came to be registered.
AJAY KUMAR
2026.10.30 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61398-2026 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and she has
no connection with the alleged offence. Learned counsel has further iterated
that the petitioner is a woman aged about 48 years and is a homemaker with
clean antecedents. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has been
named in the FIR without any specific allegation regarding the injury
allegedly caused by her to any police official. Learned counsel has
emphasized that the FIR does not specify the particular act attributed to the
petitioner, the weapon allegedly used by her or the injury, if any, caused by
her during the course of incident. It has been further contended that the
prosecution version does not satisfactorily explain how the complainant or
the police officials came to know the identity/name of the petitioner at the
initial stage of registration of the FIR even before the alleged disclosure
statements of the co-accused were recorded, which casts a serious doubt on
the prosecution story as well as the implication of the petitioner. According
to learned counsel, the mere fact that the petitioner is related to one of the
accused cannot be a ground to presume that she had participated in the
alleged occurrence. It has been further contended that the recovery of the
country-made pistol is attributed to co-accused Rajan alias Raja and no
weapon or other incriminating article has been recovered at the instance of
the petitioner. Furthermore, there is no need for custodial interrogation of
the petitioner as no recovery is required to be effected from her. Learned
counsel has further emphasized that co-accused namely Bakshi Ram and
Akash Kumar, have been granted the concession of regular bail by this
Court and hence on the principle of parity, the petitioner deserves to be
AJAY KUMAR
2026.10.30 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
granted the concession of pre-arrest bail particularly when no specific injury

CRM-M-61398-2026 4

or overt act has been attributed to her in the entire FIR. Furthermore, the
petitioner is ready to join investigation and shall abide by all the terms and
conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Moreover, there is no
likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice in case
she is enlarged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of aforesaid submissions, the
grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
4. In oppugnation , learned State counsel (on the strength of
advance notice) has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
by arguing that the present petition is not maintainable, as it constitutes a
third petition for anticipatory bail, without there being any substantial
change in circumstances, thereby failing both on procedural grounds and on
merits. Learned State counsel has submitted that the earlier two petitions
were dismissed as withdrawn on 07.04.2026 and 15.10.2026 respectively
wherein neither any prayer was made nor was any liberty granted to the
petitioner to file afresh. Accordingly, the State counsel has argued that the
instant petition deserves dismissal on this score alone.
4.1. While opposing the plea in hand on merits, learned State
counsel has iterated that the allegations levelled in the FIR are serious in
nature and disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner. Learned State
counsel has contended that the allegations raised in the FIR disclose a
serious incident in which a police party, while discharging its official duties,
was allegedly obstructed and attacked by a group of persons assembled at
the spot. It has been further contended that the occurrence was not a verbal
altercation but the alleged use of bricks and stones against police officials
and the forcible release of accused persons who had already been
AJAY KUMAR
2026.10.30 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
apprehended by the police. Learned State counsel has emphasized that the

CRM-M-61398-2026 5

role attributed to the petitioner has to be examined in the context of the
entire occurrence. Furthermore, the petitioner has been named as one of the
persons allegedly involved in the incident and the question whether she
participated in the alleged assault upon the police officials requires proper
investigation. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the
petition in hand.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have
gone through the available record of the case.
6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by
this Court in a titled as Bhisham Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2024(3)
RCR(Criminal) 65 , relevant whereof reads as under:-
“11. As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles
emerge:
I Second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) filed under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law & hence such
petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of
maintainability thereof.
II Such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) is
maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as
withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution
or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.
III For the second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s) to
succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently
required to show substantial change in circumstances and
showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not
suffice.
IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to
what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as
every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly,
this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the
Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail
petition(s).
AJAY KUMAR
2026.10.30 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61398-2026 6

V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive
anticipatory bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are
pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite
such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words,
the cause for a Court having successfully
countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s)
ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order
passed.
VI Once a plea for anticipatory bail has been dismissed as
withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution
or dismissed on merits by the High Court, no second/successive
anticipatory bail petition(s) shall be entertained by a Sessions
Court.”
7. Apart from it being the third petition seeking anticipatory bail,
as per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably, serious
allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. From the material
available on record, it transpires that the police party had apprehended three
persons during the course of checking and a country-made pistol was
recovered from one of them. As per the prosecution version, the persons
who assembled thereafter not only obstructed the police officials in
discharge of their official duty but also assaulted them and forcibly took
away two of the apprehended persons from the police custody. The
allegations are grave and serious as the public servants were allegedly
attacked while performing their official duties and the role of the petitioner
has to be assessed in the context of these allegations. In the FIR, the
petitioner has been named among the persons who are alleged to have been
involved in the occurrence. The plea of the petitioner that she was not
present at the spot and no act of assault or injury has been attributed to her
cannot be accepted at this stage while considering the plea for grant of
AJAY KUMAR
2026.10.30 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-61398-2026 7

anticipatory bail as this Court is not required to conduct a detailed
examination of the evidence.
8. Furthermore, it is borne out from the record that despite the
registration of the FIR on 21.01.2026, the petitioner has failed to join the
investigation and has remained absconded for a period of more than 09
months. It is evident that the petitioner has deliberately evaded the process
of law for over 09 months after the registration of the FIR. The conduct of
the petitioner in avoiding arrest for such a prolonged period without any
reasonable cause must be considered while adjudicating this petition. The
process of justice is meant to treat every individual in a manner which is
equitable and fair. However, if the petitioner-accused chooses to employ
irregular and convoluted tactics, including undue delay, strategically aimed
at frustrating lawful proceedings/investigation, it tantamount to an abuse of
the process of justice. The hiatus of more than 09 months on part of the
petitioner (herein) is inexplicable nay contumacious. Therefore, the conduct
of the petitioner when examined in the backdrop of the nature/severity of
allegations made against the petitioner, dis-entitles her from the grant of
anticipatory bail.
9. The petitioner has further relied upon the fact that co-accused
have been granted the concession of regular bail. The grant of regular bail to
co-accused also does not advance the case of the petitioner as the case of the
petitioner stands on a different footing particularly when she has not
submitted herself to the process of law and has also been specifically named
in the FIR. Though the grant of bail to another accused is a relevant
circumstance but the plea of parity cannot be claimed mechanically. Each
AJAY KUMAR
2026.10.30 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
case is required to be examined on its own facts.

CRM-M-61398-2026 8

10. Furthermore, no fresh substantial change in circumstances has
been brought forward which would indicate that the petitioner is entitled to
maintain the instant petition for grant of anticipatory bail. It is befitting to
mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the
Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and
protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude
and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused and the need for
fair and free investigation. At this stage, there is no material on record to
hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The
material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation,
appears to establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner.
Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this
stage, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.
In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] , the
Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p.189, para 6)
“6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is
qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is
well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a
case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous
advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which
would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the
suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-
arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation
in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the
custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being
subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an
argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court
has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in
a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring
offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
AJAY KUMAR
2026.10.30 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
11. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

CRM-M-61398-2026 9

(i) The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby
dismissed.
(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove
shall not have any effect on merits of the case and the investigating agency
as also the trial Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without
being influenced with this order.
(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.



(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE

October 30, 2026
Ajay

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

AJAY KUMAR
2026.10.30 17:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document