AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No.146 dated 12.06.2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 105 of the BNS, 2023 at Police Station Nakodar Sadar, District Jalandhar.
The prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR, is that on 12.06.2026 at about 8:30 a.m., the complainant namely Daljeet Singh alias Gora was present at his house along with his family members. At that time, co-accused Salwinder Kaur @ Salwindro, Penny @ Simran (petitioner herein) and Sukhwinder Kaur alias Sukhi came to the house of the complainant and started abusing him. The dispute was stated to have arisen on account of an earlier incident involving Moji, who is stated to be the son of one of the accused. The aforesaid three accused thereafter entered into a physical altercation with the complainant. When the complainant came forward to save his mother namely Bakhsho then accused Salwinder Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur allegedly caused scratches on his arms, neck and chest. The allegation against the present petitioner is that she gave a forceful push to Bakhsho, aged about 65 years. As a result of the push, Bakhsho fell to the ground and became unconscious. On raising an alarm, the accused persons left the spot and the family members of complainant took her mother to Civil Hospital, Nakodar, but she died on the way. On these set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be registered and investigation ensued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question as the allegation against her is only that she pushed the deceased. Learned counsel has further iterated that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause the death of deceased –– Bakhsho and there are no injury marks on the body of the deceased which could establish that she died on account of the alleged push. It has been further contended that the deceased died on account of cardiac arrest/heart failure and not because of any injury caused by the petitioner. Learned counsel has pointed out that there is no CCTV footage of the alleged occurrence and the prosecution case is based upon the statements of the complainant and his family members, who are related and interested witnesses. Learned counsel has highlighted that co-accused, namely, Salwinder Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur alias Sukhi, have already been granted the concession of interim protection by the trial Court, vide order dated 03.08.2026, whereas the prayer of the present petitioner was declined. Furthermore, the petitioner is a young woman aged about 22 years; has no criminal antecedents; is a permanent resident of the locality & there is no possibility of her absconding. It is further contended that nothing remains to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner and hence her custodial interrogation is not warranted in the factual milieu of the case in hand. Moreover, the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by sending her behind the bars. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the grant of the anticipatory bail is entreated for.
Per contra, learned State counsel (on the strength of advance notice) has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature, involving the death of a lady aged 65 years. Learned State counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and a distinct and direct role has been attributed to her. It has been further contended that the allegation against the petitioner is not merely of her presence at the spot but she gave a forceful push to the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down, became unconscious and subsequently died while being taken to the hospital. Learned State counsel has emphasized that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the exact sequence of events. Furthermore, the investigation is still at a crucial stage and the grant of anticipatory bail at this juncture would seriously impede the effective investigation. On the basis of these submissions, the dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed for.
I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available record of the case.
It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, relevant whereof reads as under:
“12.In a case containing such serious allegations, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigating Officer who, has been prevented from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can hardly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, which are of extreme serious in nature.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
16.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.”
As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, serious allegations have indubitably been levelled against the petitioner. It emerges from the record that when the altercation took place, the petitioner (herein) had given a forceful push to the mother – Bakhsho (deceased) of the complainant, as a consequence of which she fell down and became unconscious. She was thereafter taken to the hospital but died on the way. The complainant has specifically stated that his elder brother, namely Baljit Singh, has witnessed the occurrence. At this stage, the role attributed to the petitioner, thus, cannot be brushed aside as a vague or general allegation. The argument that the post-mortem material may not show any external injury mark on the deceased, by itself, cannot be treated as sufficient to discard the prosecution version at this stage. In the considered opinion of this Court, the cause of death, the effect of the alleged push, the circumstances in which the deceased fell down and the subsequent death are matters which have to be properly investigated and considered on the basis of the complete evidence. At the stage of consideration of plea for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of the medical evidence or to record a final finding regarding the cause of death. However, at the stage of considering a plea for anticipatory bail, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists and whether custodial interrogation is warranted.
The seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the allegations are relevant factors while considering the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. The submission that the deceased died a natural death or due to cardiac arrest is essentially a matter of defence. At this stage, considering the gravity of the offence, the manner of occurrence as alleged as well as the need for custodial interrogation, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner is yet to be arrested and the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner, if released on bail, may abscond or attempt to influence witnesses also appears to be not without basis. Given the seriousness of the offence, the stage of investigation and the possibility of tampering with evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this juncture. Moreover, the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and/or potentially result in tampering with evidence or influencing material witnesses. The argument that the co-accused has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the trial Court is also of no help to the petitioner as the plea of parity cannot be claimed mechanically. Each case is required to be examined on its own facts, and the role attributed to the petitioner, as emerging from the FIR, prima facie appears to be direct, active and distinguishable from that of the co-accused who has been granted anticipatory bail, thereby disentitling the petitioner from claiming parity. While going through the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, it transpires that the allegation against the co-accused namely Salwinder Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur was only of causing scratch injuries to the complainant whereas the allegation against the petitioner was that she had pushed the deceased as result thereof, she fell down and died while being taken to the hospital. On this account, the trial Court has dismissed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co-accused as the principle of parity does not apply when the degree of participation and the gravity of allegations materially differ.
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 wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. 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.”
At this stage, there is no material on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to establish a reasonable basis for the accusation of the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.
Accordingly, 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. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth. The petition is, thus, 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.