The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M No.18628 of 2025 -1- 104 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.18628 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 Kuldeep Singh State of Punjab Versus ..... Petitioner ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ *** Present: Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. 1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of
Facts
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.37, dated 05.03.2025, under Sections 126(2), 309(4), 324(4), 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur. Further prayer has been made for staying the arrest of the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition. 2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement of complainant, namely, Yogesh Kumar. It was alleged that on 04.03.2025, he along with Kuldeep Singh, who works in his shop, were going on their motorcycle to his village Gidariani. They had the cash of Rs.2 lakh and one cheque amounting to RITTU 2025.04.09 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18628 of 2025 -2- Rs.20,000/- of HDFC Bank. At about 08:30 P.M. when they were about 02 kms from village Ladal, they found the road was blocked by some unknown boys. As they slow down their motorcycle, the boys armed with sticks, started beating them and damaged their motorcycle. They snatched away the money from them and escaped on their motorcycle. Being afraid, they both ran away from the place of occurrence leaving their motorcycle behind. The request was made to take the legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner was found in the offence committed and hence he was arrayed as an accused in the present case. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur praying for the grant of anticipatory bail. However after hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 18.03.2025. Hence being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of anticipatory bail. 3.
Legal Reasoning
that from the facts and circumstances, no prima facie case has been made against the petitioner and thus, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. 4. 5. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He, on the other hand has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that complicity of the petitioner has been arrayed in the present case during the investigation conducted so far. He has submitted that an amount of Rs.1,78,100/- has been effected from the co-accused, who has disclosed about the involvement of petitioner. He has submitted that the investigation is going on and for the free and fair investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. He has submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail and thus, the present petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. 7. Heard. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is inferred that the complainant was robbed of Rs.2 lacs and a cheque of Rs.20,000/-, which they were carrying in the kit. During the investigation, an amount of Rs.1,78,100/- has been recovered from the co-accused. On the statement of Yogesh Kumar, complicity of the RITTU 2025.04.09 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18628 of 2025 -4- petitioner has also been found. The motorcycle on which the accused had escaped is yet to be recovered. The investigation is at threshold. 8. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory parameters are given under Section 482 (1) & (2) BNSS which reads as under:- “Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: 1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. 2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:5) (cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8) (cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:10) (cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12) (cid:4) (cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:8) (cid:4) (cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:16) (cid:4) (cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:10) (cid:4) (cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:12) (cid:4) (cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:5) (cid:4) (cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:10) (cid:4) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12) (cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:23)(cid:7)(cid:20)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:24) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:11) (cid:4) (cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:4) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8) (cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:15) (cid:4) (cid:21)(cid:5)(cid:25) (cid:4) (cid:26)(cid:12) (cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:9) (cid:4) (cid:20)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:14) (cid:4) (cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8) (cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:28)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:7)(cid:22) (cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:22)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:4)!(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:20)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)"# 9. As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, while granting anticipatory bail, the Court is to maintain a balance between the individual liberty and the interest of society. However, the interest of the RITTU 2025.04.09 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18628 of 2025 -5- society would always prevail upon the right of personal liberty. The relevant part of the judgment is as follows:- “31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the state" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622, which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 RITTU 2025.04.09 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18628 of 2025 -6- which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.” 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7SCC 187, held as under:- “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favorable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those RITTU 2025.04.09 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18628 of 2025 -7- entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” 11. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled, it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioners has been prima facie found. Needless to say, the investigation is at the initial stage and in the facts and circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be essential and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage would scuttle the ongoing investigation. 12. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not qualify for the grant of anticipatory bail and the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 04.04.2025 rittu (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No RITTU 2025.04.09 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the petitioner is not even named in the FIR. He has submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused, which has no evidentiary value. He has submitted that as per the investigation conducted, an amount of Rs.1,78,100/- has already been RITTU 2025.04.09 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.18628 of 2025 -3- recovered and no further recovery remains to be made. He has submitted