Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Ranjit Singh in High-Profile Murder Case

Court emphasizes necessity of custodial interrogation in the investigation of social media influencer's suspicious death.

In a significant development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Ranjit Singh, who is implicated in the sensational murder case of social media influencer Kanchan Kumari, known online as Kanchan Kaur Bhabhi. The decision was delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel on December 3, 2025, underlining the necessity for custodial interrogation to ensure a thorough investigation into the case.

The case came to the fore following the discovery of Kanchan Kumari's decomposed body in a car in Bathinda on June 11, 2025. The FIR, initially filed against unknown persons, was later expanded to include several suspects, including Ranjit Singh, based on disclosure statements from other accused individuals. Ranjit Singh is accused of facilitating the escape of the main accused, Amritpal Singh, thereby obstructing the course of justice.

Representing the petitioner, Advocate Vivek Salathia argued that Ranjit Singh was neither named in the original FIR nor directly linked to the murder through any substantive evidence. Salathia contended that his client's name only surfaced due to the disclosure statement of co-accused Jaspreet Singh, and emphasized Ranjit Singh’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

However, the State's counsel, Adhiraj Singh Thind, opposed the bail, highlighting the grave nature of the allegations and Ranjit Singh’s alleged role in aiding the escape of a key suspect. Thind underscored the ongoing nature of the investigation and the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the criminal conspiracy and trace the whereabouts of the main accused.

The court, after hearing both sides, concluded that the severity of the allegations, the specific role ascribed to Ranjit Singh, and his absconding status justified the denial of anticipatory bail. The judgment emphasized that granting such bail could impede the investigation, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in State v. Anil Sharma (1997) regarding the critical role of custodial interrogation in complex cases.

Justice Goel remarked that the court must balance individual rights with societal interests, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring comprehensive investigations in cases of grave public interest.

Bottom Line:

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, can be denied when there are serious allegations, specific roles attributed to the petitioner, ongoing investigation, and the necessity for custodial interrogation to ensure effective investigation.

Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Sections 103, 238, 61(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2818514