AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shalini Singh Nagpal, J
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case vide FIR No.115 dated 27.07.2026, under Sections 305, 306, 61 (2) of BNS, Police Station Koom Kalan, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. This is the first application for anticipatory bail.
The facts, as narrated in the FIR, noticed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in his order dated 19.08.2026, regarding which no dispute has been raised, are as follows:
‘A perusal of the record reveals that the law was set into motion on the basis of statement of complainant Piyush Aggarwal, on the allegations that he owns a garment manufacturing factory in the name of M.K. Aggarwal, situated at Plot No. 510, Lakshita Cluster Colony, Kohara-Machhiwara Road. His factory had remained closed for about three months. Three security guards had been deployed by King Group Security, Plot No. 709, HJS, H.J. Block, BRS Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, namely Mankhush Jha, Sukumar and Kuldeep. The security guards were looking after the factory. During the night intervening 22/23-07-2026, he went to the factory for a round. The factory gate was closed. He stood outside the factory and called out to the security guard, but nobody was present at the gate. He then called the Field Officer of the security agency, Apninder Singh, from his mobile phone. Apninder Singh answered the call, and he told him that the guards deployed by him were not present at the factory. As he had some urgent work, he left the place. On 24-07-2026, he asked his friend Priyash, son of Mahesh, to visit his factory and check the security guards, as he was going out for some work. His friend subsequently called him and informed him that the security guards were not present inside the factory. On 25-07-2026, he came to his factory. When he reached near the factory gate, Kuldeep opened the main gate. At that time, a boy named Ravi, on seeing him, fled from the spot on the factory's motorcycle. He then entered the factory. On seeing him, Kuldeep and another person accompanying him, namely Sushil, son of Chhedi Lal also fled from the spot. He, along with Master Raj Kumar, inspected the factory and found that 08 dyeing machines belonging to his company were missing. Parts of approximately 3½ dyeing machines were also missing. From the other hall, 10/12 small machines, approximately 150 motors, a water cooler, compressor, AC, DVR, LED, computer, all the articles lying in the maintenance room, and other articles had been stolen and taken away. During his inquiry, he came to know that his machines had been cut into pieces and stolen. He further came to know that the machines, after being cut, and the other stolen articles were loaded into a Cater vehicle, whose driver was Sodhi and were transported on different dates. They had been taken away, and two unidentified persons had been called for cutting the machines. Along with the aforesaid vehicle, four unidentified persons had been called for loading and carrying away the machines after they had been cut. He has a strong suspicion that, in the entire incident, the security guards, in connivance with the security agency, got the theft committed from his factory.’
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not named in the FIR. They had been falsely implicated on disclosure statement of co-accused. Petitioners were not even workers of the factory and had no involvement in the offence alleged. They were ready and willing to join investigation.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Aakash Yadav, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of State and submits that FIR was registered with regard to theft in a garment manufacturing factory against six named accused and two unknown persons. Petitioners were involved on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. The theft of 8 dyeing machine, worth several crores of rupees was done in a planned manner by dis-mantling the machine and taking out the parts over a period of of time. Petitioners’ involvement was disclosed by co-accused and complainant too named them in his supplementary statement. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners was required as the alleged stolen machines were stated to have been purchased by petitioners. Anticipatory bail of similarly situated co-accused Bashar Ahmed was declined by this Court vide order dated 02.09.2026.
The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court is required to balance the right of the prosecution for free, fair and unhindered investigation as also personal liberty of the accused and interest of the society. Role attributed to the accused is required to be considered with great care and caution. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime.
Investigation of the case is at crucial stage and recovery of stolen machines worth several corers of rupees, alleged to have been sold to the petitioners, is pending. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners would thus be necessary. Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the rights of the investigating agency, restrict it from effecting recoveries, unearthing the modus-operandi, the manner in which the offence was committed and the identity of other persons involved in the offence. There are no extra ordinary circumstances made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
Nothing observed hereinabove shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.