Amritsar court junks Kanchanpreet Kaur’s anticipatory bail plea

Amritsar district attorney Amritpal Singh Khaira told The Indian Express, “An FIR under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 20(1)(2), 24(B) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act 2025 was registered against Kanchanpreet Kaur at Majitha police station. During investigation…addition of offences under Sections 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 339, 340, 61(2) BNS and 12(1)(b) Passport Act was made.”

“The court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, granted interim anticipatory bail to Kanchanpreet Kaur vide order dated 26.11.2025, and she joined the investigation with the police on 28.11.2025, but did not cooperate with the investigating agency and did not provide the documents and relevant information to the investigating officer. The Amritsar court, vide order dated 23.12.2025, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Kanchanpreet Kaur.”

Sources said that in April this year, Kanchanpreet filed a divorce application in court after returning from the UAE, but the attached marriage certificate was found to be fake.

During the Tarn Taran by-election campaign, Kanchanpreet alleged that Aam Aadmi Party candidate and now MLA Harmeet Singh Sandhu had “turned” her husband Amritpal Singh alias Harpreet into a gangster; she delivered speeches sympathetic to him but never publicly stated that he was her husband or she had filed a divorce application.

What police informed court

The police informed the court, “Kanchanpreet Kaur did not cooperate the investigating agency and despite there being specific directions to her of providing the relevant documents/information, she did not provide a number of relevant documents/information. On said date, details of those information/documents was given in writing and copy of the same was supplied to the applicant witha direction to provide the relevant information/documents within a period of three days and in case any such information/documents was not available or she consider the same to be privileged, to furnish her reply supported by affidavit.”

“On 22.12.2025 also, the investigating agency agitated the matter that most of the record/information has not been provided and when the matter was fixed for today for final hearing, the applicant provided some of the information/documents. One of the documents provided by her is copy of Marriage Certificate dated 25.08.2019. In this regard, it has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that said document is forged and fabricated. Relying upon said document, she had filed a divorce petition and when said document was got verified from the Granthi Nishan Singh, who allegedly issued the same, he clarified that this document was fake.”

The police said the mobile phone used by the applicant was quite relevant for the purpose of investigation as the phone was supposed to have information which was relevant to the investigation. Earlier, when she joined the investigation, she had stated that the said mobile phone was with her known one and she would hand over the same, but now she has taken a contradictory plea that the said mobile phone has been lost, they said.

“She even avoided providing the information with regard to her travel from UAE to Nepal, which was quite relevant with regard to investigation of present case. As it has been explained by learned Public Prosecutor during investigation, she had claimed that she got the tickets
booked through some agent Beena but even at this stage, she is not ready to provide contact number and other information of said agent. Even with regard to the vehicles by which she traveled from Nepal to India, she has not provided the information and has given vague replies,” the police informed the court.

What court said in order denying anticipatory bail

The court said in the order, “From the above-referred facts brought to the notice of the Court by learned Public Prosecutor concerning the conduct of the applicant, it is apparent that the applicant has failed to co-operate the investigating agency and has been intentionally avoiding disclosing the information, which was relevant with regard to investigation.”

“It can also not be ignored that one of the documents ie.Marriage Certificate, provided by her to the investigating agency and relied upon by her in divorce proceedings, is also alleged to be
forged and fabricated. In these circumstances, the interim relief granted by this Court to the applicant cannot be further extended and no such protection can be provided to her in concealing the relevant information/record. Accordingly, the bail application in hand stand dismissed.”