AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.11 dated 24.01.2025 registered under Sections 333 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 452 and 307 IPC) at Police Station Tibba, District Ludhiana, as the petitioner apprehends his arrest pursuant to the summoning order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 358 BNSS), whereby he has been summoned as an additional accused to face trial.
The case of the prosecution is that on 24.01.2025, the complainant alleged that co-accused Niranjan Kumar @ Chotu entered her house on the pretext of taking his charger and attacked her with a pair of scissors. It was further alleged that the present petitioner and co-accused Sheela also entered the house, whereupon Sheela allegedly caught hold of the complainant and snatched her gold chain, while the present petitioner allegedly caught hold of the complainant's son Danish and Niranjan Kumar @ Chotu gave a scissor blow on his head. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered. During investigation, however, the CCTV footage was examined and no material substantiating the involvement of the petitioner or the allegation regarding snatching of the gold chain came on record. The petitioner was accordingly found innocent and the final report under Section 193 BNSS was presented only against co-accused Niranjan Kumar @ Chotu. The petitioner was thus not sent up to face trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the petitioner was named in the FIR, he was found innocent during the course of investigation and was not sent up for trial. It is submitted that the investigating agency, after conducting investigation and examining the CCTV footage, did not find sufficient material against the petitioner and consequently presented the challan only against co-accused Niranjan Kumar @ Chotu. It is further submitted that during trial, the complainant, while appearing as PW-1, reiterated the allegations and an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 358 BNSS) was moved, which was allowed vide order dated 24.04.2026 and the petitioner was summoned as an additional accused. Learned counsel submits that no new or independent material, apart from the statement of the complainant already recorded during investigation, has surfaced against the petitioner. It is further argued that the summoning order is non-speaking, nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, the petitioner is ready and willing to join the proceedings and the co-accused Sheela Devi @ Shanti, who was also summoned subsequently, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2026 in CRM-M-43171-2026.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper-book.
It is not in dispute that although the petitioner was named in the FIR, he was found innocent during the course of investigation and was not sent up to face trial. The petitioner has now been summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 358 BNSS) on the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded during trial. The merits of the summoning order are not under challenge before this Court and, therefore, are not being examined in the present proceedings. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not arrested during investigation, no recovery is stated to be required from him, the challan has already been presented against the original accused and the petitioner has been summoned subsequently by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to undergo custodial interrogation. His presence before the trial Court can adequately be secured by imposing appropriate conditions. The fact that co-accused Sheela Devi @ Shanti, who was similarly summoned as an additional accused after having not been sent up for trial by the investigating agency, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2026 in CRM-M-43171-2026, also lends support to the petitioner’s prayer.
Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate within 10 days from today. On his doing so, he shall be released on bail on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and further subject to his appearing before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless exempted in accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.