AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0032 dated 16.02.2026 registered under Sections 238(a), 3(5), 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 201, 34, 406 & 420 IPC) at Police Station Mullana.
The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Raman Sharma S/o Neelkanth Sharma and the same reads as under:-
"Copy of application, No. 2025/L/PS Bhikhi, dated 25.07.2026. 'To, SHO Sahib, PS Bhikhi, District Mansa. Subject:- For registration of case against Pritpal Singh Dali and his wife Karamjeet Kaur alongwith unidentified persons for forcibly entering in my land and demolishing the room, stealing the agricultural tools and bricks and issuing threats to kill by display of weapons. Sir, it is respectfully submitted that I am Raman Sharma son of Neelkanth Sharma, permanent resident of Zira. On dated 29.09.2025 the Excise Department had fixed auction of land measuring 94 kanals 8 marlas, situated at village Matti, Tehsil Bhikhi, District Mansa, which is ownership of Karamjeet Kaur wife of Pritpal Singh Dali, resident of Mansa. I participated in the auction and the land was transferred in my name for bid amount of Rs. 2.36 crores. After payment of entire bid amount, the sale deed pertaining to the aforesaid entire land was executed in my favour and the mutation has been sanctioned and the girdawari has been changed in my name and I was put in possession of the land on the spot. Now, I had constructed one room in my land and in the said room the agricultural tools like tillers, two sprays drums, bore-well tools, five bags of urea, three bags of DAP, electric motor were stored and the room was locked by me and Arshpreet Singh Brar was stationed to take care of the land. I had tilled my land and the same was ready for sowing. On dated 24.07.2026, at about 05:00 PM, Pritpal Singh Dali, alongwith his wife Karamjeet Kaur and 5/7 unidentified persons, came at my land in a tractor trolley and a car. The aforesaid persons were armed with deadly weapons like KAPAS and GANDASAS and Pritpal Singh Dali was having a revolver. He aimed his weapon towards Arshpreet Singh Brar and other persons who were present raised LALKARAS and said that he will kill them if they would try to intercept him. The aforesaid persons broke open the lock of my room and forcibly loaded the agricultural tools like tillers, two spray drums, borewell tools, five bags urea, three bags DAP and old water-pump in the trolley and thereafter Pritpal Singh Dali demolished my room with the tractor and many bricks were also loaded in the trolley. Arshpreet Singh Brar kept on standing on one side out of fear and aforesaid persons raised LALKARAS and issued threats that though Raman Sharma has purchased the land, however, we will take back the possession by use of force and through our political influence. All the appeals pertaining to this land, filed by Karamjeet Kaur, before Excise Commissioner, Punjab and Hon'ble High Court have already been dismissed. After they had left the spot Arshpreet Singh informed me and I lodged complaint at Police Helpline No. 112. Strict legal action may be initiated against the accused and justice may be imparted to me. Sd/- Raman Sharma son of Neelkanth Sharma, resident of Zira, Mobile No. 85579-68043. Police Proceedings."
The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, the land of the petitioner has been sold in a collusive sale to the complainant/respondent No. 2 for ₹2.36 crores, whereas the approved valuer had valued the land at ₹4.35 crores. The FIR has been registered so as to pressurize the petitioner and her husband in withdrawing the challenge to the sale deed and to create evidence that the complainant/respondent no.2 is in possession of the land, though possession has never been delivered to him and the same is still with the petitioner. The petitioner is a household lady and possesses no weapon. The husband of the petitioner possesses one.32 bore pistol which lies deposited with a gun house. As the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation, she be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.
A status report dated 01.09.2026 by way of an affidavit of Pushpinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Mansa, District Mansa has been filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. While referring to the status report, he along with the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.2 contend that the complainant/respondent no.2 had purchased the land in an open auction. The petitioner has challenged the said auction proceedings in multiple cases, but has not succeeded in any of those cases till date. On account of acute frustration, an attempt has been made to forcibly dispossess the complainant/respondent no.2. An Emergency Response Vehicle reached the spot along with police officials. Their statements have been recorded, as per which there were multiple armed persons in two Scorpio vehicles and one Innova car along with a tractor-trolley that had come to the spot, demolished the room/kotha standing upon the land and removed articles from there. The accused persons were armed with rifles and revolvers and fled away from the spot on seeing the police party. Prima facie, the offence stands established. Further, to take the investigation to its logical conclusion as also to recover the weapons of the offence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner and her co-accused is certainly required. Therefore, she is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.
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 Live Law (SC) 870 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 status report dated 01.09.2026 of the State is as under:-
"15.That, during the course of invstigation, the statements of SCT Paramjit Singh and SCT Manjit Singh, who were deployed on Emergency Response Vehicle No.112, were recorded. They stated that, upon receipt of the emergency call bearing Event ID No.2812381, they reached the place of occurrence in the official vehicle and personally noticed approximately ten to eleven persons present there with two Scorpio vehicles, one Innova Car and a tractor-trolley. One of the Scorpio vehicles bore Registration No.PB-46-AK-3672, whereas the registration particulars of the remaining vehicles could not be noted, further stated that the room/kotha standing upon the land had already been demolished and the articles removed therefrom had been loaded into the tractor-trolley. The persons present at the spot were armed with rifles and revolvers and, upon noticing the arrival of the police party, fled from the spot in their respective vehicles and also took away the tractor-trolley loaded with the removed articles. In view of this direct contemporaneous account furnished by the responding police officials, the use and possession of firearms during the occurrence prima facie surfaced, whereupon Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, were added vide DDR No. 12 dated 06.08.2026.
15.EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER:
That the complicity of the present petitioner is prima facie established by the specific attribution that she accompanied her husband, Pritpal Singh alias Dali, and the armed co-accused to the disputed land and actively participated in the concerted acts of forcible entry, breaking open the room, removal of agricultural articles and demolition of the structure. The ocular version of the caretaker stands materially corroborated by the contemporaneous account of the ERV-112 police officials, who reached the spot and witnessed several armed persons fleeing in multiple vehicles along with a tractor-trolley loaded with the removed articles. The petitioner's prior ownership of the land, her unsuccessful challenge to the auction and the subsisting dispute concerning possession furnish a discernible motive which, when read conjointly with her presence and participation at the spot, constitutes cogent connecting material prima facie establishing her complicity in the occurrence.
16.ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:
That the specific role attributed to the present petitioner is that she accompanied her husband, Pritpal Singh alias Dali, and the other armed accused to the land in question and, in furtherance of their common object, participated in the forcible entry, breaking open of the locked room and removal of the agricultural articles loaded into the tractor-trolley. Her presence was thus neither incidental nor passive; rather, she formed part of the unlawful assembly which carried out the occurrence and thereafter left the spot along with the removed articles."
From the contents of the FIR and the investigation conducted so far, it is apparent that as the petitioner was unable to succeed in civil proceedings initiated by her challenging the auction, an attempt has been made to forcibly dispossess the complainant/respondent no.2 and in the process, the room/kotha standing upon the land has been demolished and various articles have been taken away. At the relevant time, the accused were armed with rifles and revolvers but fled away upon noticing the police party. Prima facie, the offence stands established. As the investigation is to be taken to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner and her co-accused is certainly required.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
However, the observations made hereinabove are only for the purposes of deciding this bail petition 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 herein.