AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
The present second petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Section 438 Cr. P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No.0118 dated 15.06.2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, at Police Station Dehlon, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.
For the cause of convenience, the relevant factual milieu of the case is drawn from the order passed by the concerned Sessions Judge (whereby anticipatory bail plea of the petitioner was rejected), reads thus:
“6.A perusal of the record reveals that the law was set into motion on the statement of complainant Jatinder Kumar, on the allegations that he is originally a resident of District Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. He studied up to the 9th standard. About 20–21 years ago, he came to Punjab to earn his livelihood as a labourer. Since then, he has been working in different factories in Ludhiana as a labourer. His wife, Lakshmi, and children have been living with him. For about 10 years, he worked as a labourer at Jasvi Storage Solutions Private Limited, located on Bhama Road, near Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana. The owner of the factory is Harvinder Singh alias Soni, son of Manjit Singh, resident of House No. 73-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana. On 14 April 2026, he left that factory because Harvinder Singh alias Soni neither paid his wages nor settled his accounts. Whenever he demanded his dues, he used to abuse him. In April 2026, he went to his native village in Uttar Pradesh along with his children. In May 2026, he returned to Ludhiana and started working as a labourer at Bebe Steel Industries, Village Paddi, Police Station Dehlon. He also rented a quarter in the village and started living there with his wife and children. On 12.06.2026, at about 2:45 p.m. he received a WhatsApp voice message on his mobile phone (No. 79915- 47554 from mobile No. 98883-55225 of Harvinder Singh alias Soni. In the message, he threatened him, saying “Wherever you are, come back to my factory, otherwise I will beat you and forcibly take you back.” After hearing the message, he informed Ganeshwar Pandey, the in-charge at his factory, who informed the factory owners, who were in Delhi that day. At about 7:30 p.m., instead of going home after work, he went to the liquor vend at Village Paddi. He purchased liquor and had just started drinking outside the shop. After he had consumed only one peg, at about 8:15 p.m., a white Toyota Innova stopped near him. It was being driven by Harvinder Singh alias Soni, and with him were Neeraj Kumar and Anil Kumar, workers of his factory, whom he already knew though he did not know their addresses. All three got out of the vehicle, abused him, forcibly dragged him, and threw him into the Innova. While abusing him and threatening to shoot him, they took him to Harvinder Singh’s factory at Cheema Chowk. At the factory, Harvinder Singh continued abusing him and told him “If you do not leave Bombay Steel and return to work for me, I will have you shot.” He replied that he wanted to continue working at his present factory. Upon this, Harvinder Singh again threatened to kill him and forcibly took away his Oppo mobile phone containing SIM No. 79915-47554, and his friend Madan’s Vivo mobile phone, which was with him that day, containing SIM No. 8284085351. He kept him confined in the factory until about 11:00 p.m. Thereafter, Harvinder Singh, along with factory workers Anil and Rohit whose address he does not know, made him sit in the same Innova. They drove around the city for quite some time and at about 1:30 a.m. took him to the room of Neeraj, near Jalandhar Bypass, and kept him there.While there, he secretly used the mobile phone of Neeraj’s son and called his wife Lakshmi on her mobile No. 81277-76922, informing her of everything. Thereafter, his wife Lakshmi, along with his present employers Harmandeep Singh and Guneet Singh, owners of Bombay Steel Factory, Village Paddi, and police officials came there and got him released. He was extremely frightened and remained with his children. His wife also told him that on 12.06.2026, Harvinder Singh alias Soni, Neeraj, and Anil had come to their rented quarter and threatened her as well. Because he was deeply frightened, he was not in a position to make his statement earlier.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a bare perusal of the FIR would reflect that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are wholly concocted, improbable and devoid of any merits. Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant was employed with the petitioner and in the month of April 2026, the petitioner had advanced a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to him as he had to visit his native place in Uttar Pradesh. It has been further submitted that subsequently, the petitioner paid an additional sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards travelling expenses, as the complainant had expressed his inability to return to work on account of lack of funds. Learned counsel has emphasized that, upon returning from his native village, instead of rejoining the factory of the petitioner, the complainant had joined the business of the opponent of the petitioner, namely, M/s Bombay Steel Industries. It has been argued that the FIR in question was lodged at the instance of the aforesaid opponent of the petitioner and is a result of the said animosity. Furthermore, the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 12.06.2026, whereas the FIR came to be registered on 15.06.2026, i.e. after a delay of about 03 days, which indicates that the allegations are an afterthought & the FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive. It has been further submitted that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and shall cooperate therein. On the strength of these submissions, a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is entreated for.
In oppugnation, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the instant petition by arguing that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and cannot be brushed aside at this stage. It has been contended that the allegations levelled in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the version of the complainant requires thorough investigation. Referring to reply dated 12.09.2026, which is on record, learned State counsel has contended that the role ascribed to the petitioner has to be examined in light of the material collected during investigation. The relevant of the said status report reads thus:
“(A) Role of the Petitioner:
Petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and has been attributed the principal role in the occurrence, on 12.06.2026 at about 2:45 PM, the petitioner sent a WhatsApp voice message from his mobile No. 98883-55325 to the complainant's mobile No. 79915-47554, threatening him to return to the petitioner's factory. Thereafter, at about 8:15 PM, the petitioner, while driving a white Innova car and accompanied by co-accused Neeraj Kumar and Anil Kumar, reached the liquor vend at Village Paddi, where the complainant was forcibly dragged into the vehicle under threat of being shot and taken to the petitioner's factory at Cheema Chowk. At the factory, the petitioner threatened the complainant to leave his employment at Bombay Steel Industries and resume working for him and, upon his refusal, took into his possession the complainant's Oppo mobile phone bearing No. 79915-47554 as well as the Vivo mobile phone bearing No. 8284085351 belonging to his friend Madan. The complainant was kept confined in the factory till about 11:00 PM, thereafter the petitioner, along with Anil and Rohit, took him in the same Innova car and ultimately left him confined ﺍ ING in the room of co-accused Neeraj near Jalandhar Bypass.
(B) Incriminating Evidence Collected Against the Petitioner
i) Specific Statement of the Complainant
The complainant has specifically named the petitioner and attributed to him the acts of sending the threatening WhatsApp voice message, driving the white Innova car to Village Paddi, forcibly taking him into the vehicle along with the co-accused, threatening him at the factory, taking possession of the two mobile phones and participating in his continued confinement and subsequent removal from the factory. The FIR was registered on the basis of the said statement under Sections 140(3), 351(2) and 3(5) BNS, 2023.
ii) WhatsApp Voice Message and Mobile Numbers
The allegation regarding the threat preceding the occurrence is linked to specific mobile numbers. The complainant stated that at about 2:45 PM on 12.06.2026, a threatening WhatsApp voice message was received on his mobile No. 79915-47554 from mobile No. 98883-55325 of the petitioner, directing him to return to the petitioner's factory, failing which he would be beaten and taken away. The complainant further stated that he immediately informed factory in-charge Ganeshwar Pandey regarding the said message.
iii) Statements of Material Witnesses:
During investigation, statements of Lakshmi, wife of the complainant, factory owner Harmandeep Singh, Guneet Singh, factory in-charge Ganeshwar Pandey and other relevant persons have been recorded under Section 180 BNSS, 2023. These witnesses are material to the different stages of the occurrence, including the threat communicated before the occurrence and the circumstances in which the complainant was subsequently located and rescued.
iv) Rescue of the Complainant:
The complainant has stated that while being kept in the room of co-accused Neeraj near Jalandhar Bypass, he secretly used the mobile phone of Neeraj's son to call his wife Lakshmi on mobile No. 8127776922 and informed her about the occurrence. Thereafter, Lakshmi, along with Harmandeep Singh, Guneet Singh and police personnel, reached the said place and rescued him. The complainant further stated that his wife informed him that the petitioner, Neeraj and Anil had also visited their quarters on 12.06.2026 and threatened her.
v) Recovery of Mobile Phones Yet to be Effected:
The complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner took into his possession his Oppo mobile phone bearing No. 79915-47554 as well as the Vivo mobile phone bearing No. 8284085351 belonging to his friend Madan. The said articles are material to the investigation and their recovery is yet to be effected.” Raising submission in tandem with the aforesaid reply, learned State counsel has contended that the investigation is still under-way and the petitioner is yet to be arrested. Considering the nature of allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for effecting recovery of mobile phone(s). Furthermore, in case, the petitioner is accorded the concession of anticipatory bail, at this stage, there is all likelihood that he may abscond from the process of justice as also influence/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the petition in hand.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vociferously opposed the petition in hand by raising submission in tandem with the State counsel. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has threatened the complainant, forcibly abducted him and compelled him to work in his factory against his will. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the dismissal of the instant petition is canvassed for.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
As per the prosecution case, indubitably, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The material collected during the course of investigation indicates that the complainant has attributed a specific role to the petitioner in threatening, forcibly abducting and wrongfully confining him as well as compelling him to work in the factory of the petitioner against his will. In the considered opinion of this Court, these allegations require thorough investigation and cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon in a petition for grant of anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the argument regarding delay in registration of the FIR also does not persuade this Court at this stage as such delay and the explanation thereof are matters to be considered during the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence. At the stage of anticipatory bail, the Court is primarily required to examine the nature and gravity of accusations and the role attributed to the accused. The exact nature and extent of the involvement of the petitioner requires deeper investigation for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be essential. The grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the investigation.
No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage, from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. It goes without saying that in the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner, as emerging from the FIR and material placed on record, are neither vague nor general in nature. The stand of the investigating agency before this Court is that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the recovery of the mobile phone(s) robbed by the petitioner, ascertaining the role of co-accused as also verifying the vehicle allegedly used in the commission of offence. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and wider impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that every person in the society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding & fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and the preliminary investigation appear to establish reasonable basis for the accusations. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. A profitable reference in this regard is being made to the dicta passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, the Supreme Court held as under, relevant whereof reads as under:
“6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable 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 entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”
In view of the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the offence and the requirement of the custodial interrogation for a fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the factual milieu of the case in hand.
In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.