Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh @ Kala vs State Of Punjab on 26 February, 2026
CRM-M-9629 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
342 CRM-M-9629 of 2026
Date of Decision: 26.02.2026
Balbir Singh @ Kala ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL
Present: Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, AAG, Punjab.
*****
RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.108 dated 09.06.2025 registered under Sections 308(5), 351(2), 61(2), 140(2), 318(4), 111(2), 111(3) and 111(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner along with other co-accused, had formed a gang which is engaged in operating blackmailing rocket and extorting money from innocent people under the pretext of getting compromises. Hence, the present FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no concern with the said offence. He further submitted that the petitioner was 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2026 22:30:49 ::: CRM-M-9629 of 2026 -2- not named in the FIR. He argued that the alleged occurrence took place on 06.05.2025 but the FIR in question was registered on 09.06.2025 i.e. after an unexplained delay of more than one month, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by one co-accused Sukhchain Singh. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation is not admissible. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that present petition be allowed.
4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 19.12.2025.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the status report in the matter, which is taken on record and while referring to the same, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He argued that the petitioner is specifically named in the disclosure statement of co-accused Sukhchain Singh. He further argued that as per his disclosure statement, the present petitioner is the member of the 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2026 22:30:49 ::: CRM-M-9629 of 2026 -3- gang and directly linked with Manjit Singh @ Sanghera, who is the leader of the said gang. He further argued that the present petitioner along with other co-accused made obscene, morphed and edited photographs/videos of innocent people and extorted money by blackmailing them and as such, the petitioner has actively participated in the crime. He further submitted that the petitioner is not only peripheral participant but principal architect of the conspiracy. He along with co-accused orchestrated a well planned conspiracy to cheat the complainant and other innocent people. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and proper investigation in the matter as well as to unearth the modus operandi of accused; and to recover the amount involved in the alleged fraud. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and pertain to a well-organized conspiracy involving preparation of obscene morphed photographs and videos for the purpose of blackmail and extortion. The status report filed by the State reveals that the petitioner is alleged to be an active participant and a key member of the gang, having direct links with the main accused and having played a significant role in the offence. The contention of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated and nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused cannot be examined in detail at this stage, particularly when the investigation is still at a nascent stage and the material collected so far prima facie indicates his involvement. Considering the seriousness of the 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2026 22:30:49 ::: CRM-M-9629 of 2026 -4- allegations, the requirement of custodial interrogation to unearth the modus operandi of the gang, to ascertain the extent of the conspiracy, and to effect recovery of the defrauded amount and electronic devices used in the commission of the offence, this Court is of the considered view that no extraordinary relief under Section 482 BNSS is made out. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.
7. 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; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It would be apposite to refer herein judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State Vs. Anil Sharma', (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under:
"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 information 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 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2026 22:30:49 ::: CRM-M-9629 of 2026 -5- 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."
8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case titled as "P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24, while dealing with economic offences, has held that the power of anticipatory bail should be sparingly exercised in economic offences. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty".
Economic Offences
78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, it was held that in economic offences, the accuse is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2026 22:30:49 ::: CRM-M-9629 of 2026 -6- XXX XXX XXX
83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail".
9. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition in the factual matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation and if it is denied, it will leave many loose ends, which is not desired. Thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
10. It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
26.02.2206 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2026 22:30:49 :::