AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 BNSS is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.150 dated 26.12.2025 under Sections 308(4) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 (earlier Section 387 and 506 IPC), (Sections 125, 324(4) of BNS) (earlier Section 336, 427 IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act added later, registered at Police Station Rangar Nangal, District Batala.
The brief facts of the case are that the present case was registered at the instance of complainant Balbir Singh son of Ravel Singh, resident of Natt, Police Station Rangar Nangal, District Gurdaspur, who stated that he was running a shop of sand and crusher at Bus Stand Natt. He had two sons namely Captain Singh and Major Singh. Captain Singh was assisting him in his shop and Major Singh was living in Italy. On 24.12.2025, he received telephonic call from No.+601096-27394 on his mobile No.98721-48068. The person talking on phone asked him to give money failing which his family would suffer. Once again, he received a threatening voice message on his WhatsApp and someone stated that he was Mannu Agwana.
After the registration of the FIR, during further investigation, one Vishal Bhatti son of Sajan resident of Bassarpur, PS Rangar Nangal was nominated as an accused in the present case vide DDR No.4 dated 04.02.2026 and he was arrested on 09.02.2026, after obtaining production warrants. However, he was found to be innocent. On the basis of secret information, Lovepreet Singh @ Love son of Sukhwinder Singh resident of Shahbad and Gurpreet Singh @ Jass (petitioner) son of Jagtar Singh resident of Shahbad were nominated as accused in the present case vide DDR No.30 dated 15.04.2026. Lovepreet Singh was arrested on 20.04.2026.
Lovepreet Singh got recorded in his disclosure statement that he had been in contact with Mannu Agwan and used to communicate with him through a virtual SIM number. Mannu Agwan had told him that he needed money and instructed him to identify a wealthy businessman in his area from whom ransom could be demanded. Acting on these instructions, he consulted his village friend namely Gurpreet Singh @ Jass (petitioner) son of Jagtar Singh resident of Shahbad. Together they identified Balbir Singh son of Ravel Singh, resident of Village Natt, who was engaged in a large-scale sand and gravel business in Village Natt and whose one son was residing in Italy. He informed Mannu Agwan about Balbir Singh. He and Gurpreet Singh @ Jass had jointly carried out this task and had provided Balbir Singh's mobile phone number to Mannu Agwan after which Mannu Agwan demanded ransom from Balbir Singh. As Balbir Singh did not comply with the ransom demand, Mannu Agwan contacted Lovepreet Singh again and arranged for some unknown persons to open fire at Balbir Singh's shop.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the arrested accused. Other than the said disclosure statement, there is no other inculpatory evidence available against the petitioner. As he is ready and willing to join the investigation, he be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.
The learned State counsel, on the other hand, has filed a reply dated 02.09.2026 which is taken on record. While referring to the said reply, he contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave. Offences of this kind where ransom demands are made and on non-fulfillment of the same, the victim is attacked, are rising on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession as prayed for particularly, when he has criminal antecedents with as many as 07 other cases registered against him. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977', has held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail."
The relevant extract of the reply dated 02.09.2026 is as under:-
"7.That, the deponent humbly submits that during investigation of the case accused Lovepreet Singh was arrested and he had got recorded the disclosure statement that "he had been released on bail from Ludhiana Jail on 13-12-2025. He had been in contact with Mannu Agwan since ago and used to communicate with him through a virtual SIM number. Mannu Agwan had told me through the phone that he needed money and instructed him to identify a wealthy businessman in his area from whom ransom could be demanded. Acting on these instructions, he consulted his village friend namely Gurpreet Singh alias Jass, son of Jagtar Singh, resident of Shahbad. Together, they identified Balbir Singh, son of Ravel Singh, resident of village Natt, who was engaged in a large-scale sand and gravel business in village Natt and whose one son was residing in Italy. He informed Mannu Agwan about Balbir Singh. He and Gurpreet Singh alias Jass had jointly carried out this task and had provided Balbir Singh's mobile phone number to Mannu Agwan. Thereafter, Mannu Agwan demanded ransom from Balbir Singh. When Balbir Singh did not comply with the ransom demand, Mannu Agwan contacted Lovepreet Singh again and arranged for some unknown persons to open fire at Balbir Singh's shop. He had no knowledge of the identities of the persons who carried out the firing, nor did he know what weapons were used by them. After communicating with Mannu Agwan, he broke the SIM card and the mobile phone used for the communication and threw them into the Batala Hansli drain"
8.That, the deponent humbly submits that Look Out Circular (LOC) has been got issued in the name of Mannu Agwan @ Jaswinder Singh son of Satnam Singh resident of Agwan PS Kalanaur.
9.Role of the petitioner
That, as per the disclosure statement of co-accused Lovepreet Singh, accused Gurpreet Singh alias Jass, son of Jagtar Singh, resident of Shahbad, was an active participant in the conspiracy to identify a suitable target for making a ransom demand. Accused Lovepreet Singh, on the instructions of Mannu Agwan, consulted his village friend Gurpreet Singh alias Jass, and both of them jointly identified Balbir Singh, son of Ravel Singh, resident of village Natt, who was engaged in the sand and gravel business and whose son was residing in Italy, as a potential target for extortion. Thereafter, Lovepreet Singh and Gurpreet Singh alias Jass jointly provided the mobile phone number of Balbir Singh to Mannu Agwan, who subsequently demanded ransom from him. Thus, the role specifically attributed to Gurpreet Singh alias Jass is that of participating in the identification of the intended victim and facilitating the extortion conspiracy by providing his particulars/contact number to Mannu Agwan.
10.PREVIOUS CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS
That the deponent humbly submits that as per the record of Police Station Rangar Nangal, in addition to the above said case, the following cases have also been registered against the petitioner/accused :-
Sr. No. FIR No. Sections Police Station 1 FIR No.25 dated 09.04.2019 21-61-85 of NDPS Act PS Rangar Nangal 2 FIR No.78 dated 24.07.2023 25-54-59 Arms Act PS Rangar Nangal 3 FIR No.105 dated 06.10.2023 307, 452, 506, 34 IPC and 25-54-59 Arms Act PS Rangar Nangal 4 FIR No.125 dated 14.10.2023 386 IPC PS Bhogpur 5 FIR No.92 dated 23.10.2023 307, 34, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 25/25F/27-54-59 Arms Act PS Lamba 6 FIR No.380 dated 24.10.2023 25/54/59 of Arms Act PS Sector 36, Chandigarh 7 FIR No.78 dated 01.11.2023 307, 511, 120-B, 115 IPC and Section 25-54-59 Arms Act PS Dhilwan.
It is apparent that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and prima facie stand substantiated from the material on record. Some of the co-accused of the petitioner are absconding. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. There is every possibility that he would abscond from justice or tamper with the evidence in case he is granted the concession of anticipatory bail. In fact, his custodial interrogation is certainly necessary to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it uninfluenced by any such observations made.
The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.