Avtar Singh Aulakh vs State of Punjab

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.56 dated 04.04.2026, registered under Sections 108 and 56 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 306 and 116 of the Indian Penal Code), at Police Station Bhagta Bhaika, District Bathinda.

Prosecution case is that FIR No.56 dated 04.04.2026 was registered at Police Station Bhagat Bhaika, District Bathinda, under Sections 108 and 56 of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 306 and 116 IPC. The allegation against the petitioner-Avtar Singh Aulakh and co-accused is that they pressurised/deceived deceased Jagjit Singh, father of the complainant, in relation to land, on account of which he consumed a poisonous substance and died. The prosecution relies upon the suicide note and the alleged land transactions between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of a civil and monetary dispute between the complainant side and co-accused Ram Singh. It is submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the Agreement to Sell dated 16.05.2024 executed between the complainant side and Ram Singh and that his own transaction concerning five killas of land, pursuant to registered Sale Deed No.3535 dated 23.01.2025, was a separate and bona fide transaction.

It is further submitted that the petitioner had no personal acquaintance or dealings with deceased Jagjit Singh and that there is no specific act of instigation or intentional aid attributable to him. The petitioner has also relied upon the fact that co-accused Jaswinder Singh has already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

It is further argued that the allegations essentially arise out of a property dispute and that the complainant side had already initiated civil proceedings in respect of the land in question. Learned counsel has also sought parity with co-accused Jaswinder Singh, submitting that the petitioner has been unnecessarily roped into the criminal case.

Notice of motion.

Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and that the material collected during investigation, including the suicide note left by deceased Jagjit Singh, specifically refers to the petitioner.

It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for a fair and effective investigation, particularly with regard to the property transaction and the circumstances in which the deceased was allegedly subjected to pressure and harassment.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

The FIR has been registered on the statement of Preetpal Singh, son of deceased Jagjit Singh. As per the prosecution version, the complainant side had entered into a transaction concerning the land in question and had received substantial amounts of money. The allegation is that, subsequently, pressure was exerted upon the complainant side and deceased Jagjit Singh to part with land adjoining the road.

It is specifically alleged that Ram Singh, the present petitioner Avtar Singh Aulakh, Jaswinder Singh and two unknown persons came to the house of the complainant and exerted pressure upon Jagjit Singh, who was stated to be old and unwell. Thereafter, on 02.04.2026, Jagjit Singh allegedly consumed poisonous substance and ultimately succumbed to the same. The statement forming the basis of the FIR records specific allegations against the petitioner.

At this stage, this Court cannot lose sight of the suicide note which forms part of the investigation. The said note specifically refers to Ram Singh and Avtar Singh and attributes harassment/pressure to them. The plea of the petitioner that his name does not occur in the suicide note, therefore, does not appear to be borne out from the material placed on record.

The submission that the entire dispute is purely civil in nature also does not, at this stage, persuade this Court. It is true that the record reflects execution of an Agreement to Sell dated 16.05.2024 and subsequent institution of a civil suit concerning the land. The civil suit was instituted by Ram Singh for specific performance and for questioning the subsequent sale deeds. An interim order was also passed therein. However, the mere pendency of civil proceedings does not, by itself, efface the criminal allegations arising from the subsequent conduct attributed to the accused, particularly when the allegation is of exerting pressure upon an elderly person resulting in his consuming a poisonous substance. The civil proceedings and the criminal investigation operate in different fields.

The plea of parity with co-accused Jaswinder Singh is also of no assistance to the petitioner. The order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda records that there were serious allegations against the petitioner and that his custodial interrogation was considered necessary for the purposes of investigation. Significantly, the learned Court also noticed that the suicide note referred to Ram Singh and Avtar Singh, whereas Jaswinder Singh was not similarly situated. The anticipatory bail application of the present petitioner was accordingly dismissed.

It is well settled that the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail is required to be considered having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of his influencing the investigation or witnesses, the requirement of custodial interrogation and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. At the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or conduct a mini-trial.

In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are not founded merely upon his acquaintance with a co-accused. The FIR attributes a specific role to him; the suicide note also refers to him; and the prosecution version connects him with the transaction concerning the disputed land.

Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, particularly the specific allegations against the petitioner, the material contained in the suicide note, the nature of the property transaction, and the requirement of custodial interrogation as noticed by the learned Court below, this Court finds no ground to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

14 Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.