Rekha @ Rekha Ladhar and Another vs State of Punjab

"Statement of Palak Arora d/o Avtar Singh, resident of House No.3, Shiv Enclave Backside Bhim Ji Palace, Deep Nagar, P.S. Cantt. Jalandhar, aged 23 Years Mobile NO.75081-39364 stated that I am resident of above said address and I am working as Manager in Event Management and I am doing work from home. I live in the house alongwith my mother Surjit Arora, aged 64 teacher. On Years. My mother is retired 04.04.2026 at about 06.30 a.m. I alongwith my mother had gone to Mumbai after locking our house. On 20.04.2026 at about 10.00 p.m. when I returned to my house alongwith my mother then I saw that the small window of kitchen was open and the glass of window pane was broken of small window alongside the main gate and stairs. When I reached inside alongwith my mother then I saw that some unknown persons had searched the bed in the bedroom and the Almirah kept in other room, Almirah kept in bathroom kept in kitchen and unknown persons had stolen gas cylinder alongwith regulator, cash, gold and diamond ornaments and taps of bathroom. I will present the list of stolen articles after inspecting the same. I was searching till today with regard to the theft committed in our house, but I could not find any evidence. Therefore, I alongwith my mother Surjit Arora came to inform you and you met. Legal action be taken against unknown persons. Statement written and found correct. Sd/- (English) Palak Arora"

"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."

"6.

That during investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the necessary site plan, examined witnesses and collected CCTV footage from the surrounding area. The CCTV footage revealed a clean-shaven male scaling the boundary wall of the complainant's house in the early hours of 07.04.2026 while carrying a bag and a cylinder. Similar footage was also noticed in relation to the theft committed at the neighbouring premises on 15.04.2026. On the basis of the CCTV footage and subsequent investigation, the said person was identified as accused Vipan Kumar @ Chidda son of Nikka. The investigation thus proceeded on material independent of the petitioners and resulted in the apprehension of Vipan Kumar.

7.

That upon apprehension of accused Vipan Kumar, four bathroom taps, one pair of silver anklets, one pair of silver bangles and one Indane LPG cylinder were recovered from his possession. The recovery of articles connected with the occurrence, coupled with the CCTV material identifying Vipan Kumar at the scene of the theft, provided a concrete investigative basis for further interrogation of the said accused regarding the remaining stolen property and its disposal. The investigation thereafter revealed that the stolen ornaments had not remained confined to the possession of the principal accused but had been passed on to other persons.

8.

That during interrogation, accused Vipan Kumar made a disclosure regarding the stolen gold ornaments allegedly handed over/sold by him to petitioner No.1 Rekha @ Rekha Ladhar. In particular, he disclosed that two gold bangles and other gold ornaments had been sold by him to Rekha for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. Pursuant thereto, petitioner No.1 was nominated in the investigation vide DDR no. No.23 dated 06.07.2026. The police investigation record further notes that Vipan Kumar, in his disclosure dated 06.07.2026, disclosed the place where further stolen gold articles were concealed and also admitted having sold the two gold bangles for Rs.90,000/- to his sister-in-law Rekha. Thus, the role attributed to petitioner No.1 is specific and relates to the alleged receipt/purchase of identified stolen property from the principal accused.

Role of Petitioner No. 2

9.

That petitioner No.2 Rajni, wife of accused Vipan Kumar, was subsequently nominated on the basis of a further disclosure made by Vipan Kumar dated 09.07.2026. In the said disclosure, Vipan Kumar stated that certain stolen gold ornaments, including a gold necklace, a diamond locket and a gold ring, had been handed over to his sister-in-law Suman, whereas silver ornaments had been handed over to his wife Rajni. Consequently, Rajni and Suman were nominated vide DDR No.15 dated 09.07.2026. The role attributed to petitioner No.2 is Aefore also specific and concerns possession of the stolen silver ornaments allegedly handed over to her by the principal accused.

11.

That the most material aspect at the present stage is that the stolen property allegedly transferred to the petitioners has not yet been recovered. The investigation is consequently not complete qua the role and possession of the petitioners. The police are required to ascertain whether the stolen ornaments are presently in their possession, to trace and recover the same, to verify the manner and circumstances in which the property was received, to confront the petitioners with the disclosures and other material collected during investigation and to identify the complete chain of disposal of the stolen property. That the nature of the investigation involves recovery and tracing of stolen property allegedly transferred by the principal accused to different persons. The investigating agency is also to ascertain the whereabouts of the stolen property and complete the chain of possession and disposal thereof. The petitioners' custodial interrogation is therefore necessary for a fair, effective and complete investigation.