AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.89 dated 21.05.2026 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) and 61(2) of BNS, Police Station Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), District Ludhiana. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.
While issuing notice of motion on 17.07.2026, following order was passed:-
‘Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No.89 dated 21.05.2026 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) and 61(2) of BNS, Police Station Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), District Ludhiana. This is the first petition for anticipatory bail.
2.Complainant alleged that accused Divas Kumar Goyal his wife Ruhani Goyal and father Shakti Kumar Goyal persuaded him to invest his money in real estate, in partnership and convinced him to enter into an agreement to purchase land measuring 4 kanals 25 marlas in village Talwara, for total sale consideration of Rs.6,67,17,000/- from the seller Priti Jain wife of Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain and Madhu Thaman wife of late Shri Vijay Kumar. His signatures were obtained on an agreement and a sum of Rs.40 lac taken in cash. Photocopy of the original agreement was made over. As the date of registration of the sale deed approached, he asked the accused to get the documents prepared but they kept postponing the matter. He further alleged that accused did not introduce him to the original owners of the land. Later, when he met the real owners, they told him that they had never signed any agreement to sell. He demanded his money back which they did not return.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant was a Chartered Accountant and the transaction of payment of Rs.40 lacs in cash could not be believed in the absence of any receipt or disclosure in the income tax records. Learned counsel further submits that there was no occasion for the complainant to make over a sum of Rs.40 lacs to the petitioner, when he never agreed with the vendor to purchase the land and if version of complainant was believed, he himself created false document. The case was based on documentary evidence. Petitioner, who has clean antecedents, was ready and willing to join the investigation.
4.Notice of motion.
5.Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and on instructions from HC Bhupinder Singh, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that statement of vendor Priti Jain had been recorded during investigation who disclosed that she had never executed any agreement. Petitioner, thus, induced the complainant to deliver Rs. 40 lacs. Given the serious nature of allegations, petitioner did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
6.Leraned counsel for the complainant, too opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
7.In the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Status report in the matter be filed on 24.08.2026.’
Status report by way of affidavit of Sarabjeet Singh, PPS Assistant Commissioner of Police, West, Ludhiana has been filed by State of Punjab, which is taken on record. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required as he did not cooperate during investigation and failed to disclose true facts. Identity of the person who forged the agreement was to be ascertained and petitioner was required to be confronted with documentary and electronic evidence and to unravel the modus-operandi adopted.
Pursuant to order of this Court dated 17.07.2026, petitioner has joined investigation. Benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be denied for the reason that petitioner has not cooperated in investigation.
‘Cooperation’ involves joining investigation, providing truthful and relevant information, and assisting in uncovering facts within the knowledge of the accused, but it does not extend to compelling self-incrimination, extracting confessions, or using coercion. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India protects individuals from being forced to incriminate themselves, and any investigative methods violating this right are unlawful. The investigating agency must instead rely on independent and lawful methods to gather information rather than pressuring the accused to act against their constitutional safeguards. Insisting on custodial interrogation solely for self-incriminatory purposes is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.
Considering all relevant facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and order dated 17.07.2026, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, is made absolute, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.