Aiding Escape Of Prime Accused In Murder Of Social Media Influencer Shows Clear Complicity: P&H High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

19 Dec 2025 8:10 PM IST

  • Aiding Escape Of Prime Accused In Murder Of Social Media Influencer Shows Clear Complicity: P&H High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail
    Listen to this Article

    The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail filed by an accused alleged to have facilitated the escape of the prime suspect in the murder of a social media influencer Kanchan Kaur Bhabi, holding that such conduct shows clear complicity and disentitles the petitioner from discretionary relief at the pre-arrest stage.

    Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "the petitioner allegedly facilitated the main accused Amritpal Singh in fleeing from the jurisdiction of the investigating agency immediately after the occurrence which clearly indicates his complicity and an attempt to derail the investigation. In the considered opinion of this Court, such conduct cannot be treated lightly at the stage of consideration of plea for anticipatory bail. The fact that both Amritpal Singh and the present petitioner have remained absconded disentitles the petitioner to discretionary relief."

    The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail, registered at Bathinda for offences under Sections 103, 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

    The case relates to the death of Kanchan Kumari alias Kanchan Kaur Bhabhi, a social media influencer from Ludhiana. Her decomposed body was found inside a car in Bathinda.

    The FIR was lodged by her mother, who stated that the deceased had left home on 09.06.2025 after receiving a call from one Amritpal Singh, who had invited her for a car promotion assignment. When she did not return and could not be contacted, the complainant later learned that her daughter's body had been recovered.

    Initially registered against unknown persons, the investigation later led to the arrest of Jaspreet Singh and Nirmaljit Singh, whose disclosure statements allegedly revealed the involvement of the present petitioner. According to the prosecution, the petitioner helped the main accused Amritpal Singh flee towards Amritsar Airport soon after the offence, leading to the addition of further penal provisions.

    The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR and no overt act was attributed to him and his name surfaced only through disclosure statements of co-accused.

    He had no connection with the deceased and no motive was attributed to him and there was no recovery to be effected from him.

    Opposing the plea, the State argued that he offence involved the suspicious death of a young woman, making the allegations extremely grave.

    The petitioner actively facilitated the escape of the main accused, amounting to obstruction of justice and both the petitioner and the prime accused were absconding, added the State counsel.

    The Court noted that although the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR, the investigation prima facie indicated his role in helping the main accused flee immediately after the incident. Such conduct, the Court held, could not be treated lightly while considering anticipatory bail.

    Justice Goel rejected the argument that custodial interrogation was unnecessary merely because no recovery was to be made, observing that interrogation was required to trace the absconding accused and to unravel the broader chain of events. The Court also took note of the petitioner's alleged criminal antecedents and his absconding conduct.

    Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Anil Sharma (1997), the Court reiterated that custodial interrogation is often crucial and that pre-arrest bail can impede effective investigation in serious offences.

    Balancing individual liberty against societal interest, the High Court held that the gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the petitioner in facilitating the escape of the main accused, and the ongoing investigation disentitled him from anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

    Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner.

    Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

    Title: Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

    Click here to read order


    Next Story