AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition for pre-arrest bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.64 dated 12.08.2018, Police Station Satnampura, District Kapurthala, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.
The FIR of this case came into being at the instance of 'Sukhjit Kaur', hereinafter being referred to as 'complainant' only. It was stated by the above-named complainant that in the year 2007, her father 'Pal Singh' had purchased a plot ad-measuring 9 ½ marla at Jhapar Colony from 'Sunil Kumar' through property dealer 'Raj Kumar' and had raised boundary walls around it. According to complainant, about 1 ½ month prior thereto, her father visited the plot and found 'Gurdarshan Lal' (the petitioner herein), 'Surjit Kaur', 'Saranjit Singh' and 'Rajinder Sharma' property dealer were attempting to illegally take over possession of the plot, by demolishing the tower/burjies. As per complainant, they were temporarily stopped by the police.
It was further stated by the complainant that on 11.08.2018, when her father again visited the plot, the abovementioned persons along with 4-5 unknown persons demolished the tower, started constructing boundary-wall, abused her father, and chased him away despite police intervention. According to complainant, distressed by the abovementioned incident, her father went to his room without having food and water, and at about 12:00 midnight disclosed to the complainant that he had consumed poisonous medicine due to abovementioned incident. As per complainant, thereafter, her father was immediately rushed to Civil Hospital Phagwara and thereafter referred to Johal Hospital Jalandhar, where he passed away during the treatment.
It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned statement, formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.
Notice of motion.
Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.
Heard.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of investigation, the petitioner was found innocent by the police and therefore, he was not prosecuted. However, his name was kept in column No.2 of the final report, submitted by the police. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of trial, by virtue of order dated 18.11.2025, while invoking jurisdiction under Section 358 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 319 CrPC) the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused. While claiming that petitioner is innocent and nothing has to be recovered from the possession of petitioner, the benefit of pre-arrest bail has been sought for the petitioner.
The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments.
The record has been perused carefully.
A perusal of the record shows that there are several factors which are required to be taken into consideration at this stage. Those factors are:-
that during the course of investigation, the petitioner was found innocent and therefore, he was not prosecuted by the Investigating Agency;
ii) that the petitioner has been summoned as additional accused under Section 358 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 319 CrPC) and therefore, his custodial interrogation is not possible;
iii) that nothing has to be recovered from the possession of petitioner;
iv) that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future;
that detention of petitioner in judicial lock-up is not likely to serve any purpose;
vi) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses; and
vii) that there is nothing on record to show that while on anticipatory bail, the petitioner will not participate/ cooperate in the investigation.
Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
In view of above, the present petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is hereby accorded the benefit of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on the next date. If the petitioner appears before the learned trial Court, he shall be admitted to bail on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. It is however clarified that the abovementioned order is subject to the conditions that the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date, unless his presence is exempted by the learned trial Court. It is further clarified that in case of absence of petitioner in the Court on a date fixed, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner.
It is, however, clarified that any observations recorded in the above-mentioned order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.