A Mohali court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of an advocate accused of allegedly orchestrating a firing outside his residence to obtain police security, holding that his custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the weapon and electronic evidence.
Additional sessions judge TPS Randhawa declined relief to Sarvpreet Singh, a resident of Sector 99, Mohali, in the case registered at Sohana police station.
Had alleged threats from Lucky Patial gang
The case was initially registered on Sarvpreet’s complaint after he alleged that he had got an extortion call from a person identifying himself as gangster Lucky Patial, demanding ₹50 lakh. He also reported that two motorcycle-borne assailants fired at his residence on August 19, 2025, damaging a parked car.
During the investigation, police arrested the alleged shooters. According to the prosecution, one of the accused disclosed during interrogation that Sarvpreet had planned the firing and had also supplied the weapon used in the attack.
Prosecution presents mobile tower locations
The prosecution told the court that the applicant allegedly used a foreign number, linked through an internet dongle connected to a local mobile number registered in his brother’s name, to contact the co-accused. Investigators also informed the court the tower locations of the applicant’s mobile numbers and those of the co-accused matched on August 18, 2025, a day before the firing.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution told the court that the applicant allegedly used a foreign number, linked through an internet dongle connected to a local mobile number registered in his brother’s name, to contact the co-accused. Investigators also informed the court the tower locations of the applicant’s mobile numbers and those of the co-accused matched on August 18, 2025, a day before the firing.
{{/usCountry}}The state opposed the bail plea, submitting that the alleged weapon, SIM cards and mobile phones used to communicate with the co-accused were yet to be recovered and that custodial interrogation was required.
Defence claims implication
The defence argued that Sarvpreet had been implicated and was, in fact, the complainant in the case. It also contended that he had been provided security because of threats from gangsters and that there was no need for custodial interrogation.
After hearing both sides, the court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to complete the investigation and recover the weapon and electronic evidence. It dismissed the anticipatory bail application.