The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-11327-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11327-2025 Reserved on: 10.03.2025 Pronounced on: 19.03.2025 Ashok Kumar ...Pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Krishan M. Vohra, Advocate and Mr. Vishawjeet Singh, Advocate, for the pe(cid:15)(cid:15)oner. Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. ****
Facts
FIR No. Dated Police Sta0on Sec0on 45 02.02.2025 Chandi Mandir, District Pa(cid:15)ala 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) 1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 21 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 02.02.2025, based on secret information, the Police seized 26 boxes containing 312 bottles of liquor i.e. 60 bottles of Imperial Blue, 156 bottles of Royal Challenge and 96 bottles of Kingfisher beer from Varna car bearing registration No. HR-01-AC-8196, which belongs to the petitioner. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the BNSS, 2023. 4. During the investigation, it was found that the aforesaid car originally belongs to one Priyanka, which was lateron transferred to Gurmeet Singh, thereafter to Vipul, thereafter to Ashok Kumar, thereafter to Arjun, thereafter to Ashok Kumar (present petitioner), and based on this, the investigator arraigned him as an accused. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was denied. 5. JYOTI 2025.03.20 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in 1 CRM-M-11327-2025 the present case and there is no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence and the FIR does not mention that the petitioner was seen driving the vehicle or was in possession of the liquor. He further submits that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle second-hand but was not in possession of it at the relevant time and has no knowledge how the alleged liquor was planted. 6. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. 7. 8. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: “11. That it is respectfully submitted that present petitioner has committed the grave offence while indulged into the activities of selling/buying of illegal liquor without any licence or authentication, resulting in registration of the present FIR. The petitioner might again indulge into similar offences effecting human body or property or may threaten the witness. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.” REASONING: 9. Recovery of the liquor has already been effected and no purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. 10. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Legal Reasoning
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre- trial incarceration. 11. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for anticipatory bail. 12. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty JYOTI 2025.03.20 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-11327-2025 Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 13. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 14. The bail order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 15. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 16. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 17. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 18. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This JYOTI 2025.03.20 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-11327-2025 restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 19. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” 20. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail. 21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 22. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 23. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 19.03.2025 Jyo0-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.03.20 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4