AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 100 dated 14.07.2026 under Sections 126(2), 109, 140, 3(5) of BNS (erstwhile Sections 341, 307, 364 and 34 IPC) and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Berhampur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the entire role in the alleged occurrence is attributed to one Manga Singh, who was arrested from the spot. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly nominated in the present FIR and has taken a specific plea of alibi, stating that on the date of the alleged occurrence, he had gone to the Tehsil Office at about 11:00 A.M. and returned at around 06:00 P.M. Learned counsel submits that a perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations are primarily directed against Manga Singh, whereas the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he was accompanying the other co-accused persons. There is no allegation against the petitioner of either firing at the victim or causing any bodily injury to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been nominated in the present case on account of pre-existing enmity between the complainant and the co-accused and more so, the petitioner is nominated merely because of acquaintance with one of accused. Learned counsel submits that, considering that co-accused Manga Singh has already been arrested and the petitioner is a young boy of 30 years with clean antecedents, he deserves to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned State counsel submits that another FIR under Section 420 IPC has also been registered against the petitioner and there are specific reasons for registration of the present FIR, wherein the connivance of the petitioner is writ large. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was inimical towards the victim as he uploaded certain videos which allegedly hurt religious sentiments. It is further submitted that the petitioner actively connived in the commission of the offence and more so, , therefore, his custodial interrogation is of paramount importance.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
Considering the gravity of the offence, wherein the main accused, along with the petitioner, is alleged to have kidnapped the victim, and particularly in view of the specific allegation that co-accused Manga Singh fired two shots, though neither of them hit the victim, and has already been arrested, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be of considerable importance, at this stage, to ensure that the investigation in this case comes to its logical end, as the petitioner is alleged to have actively connived with the other co-accused in the commission of the offence, and his custodial interrogation may be necessary for eliciting material information and for effectively investigating the entire conspiracy.
The importance of custodial interrogation has been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, wherein it has been held as under:
"We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated 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 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 would not conduct themselves as offenders."
In light of the above, this Court does not find any ground to grant the extra ordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, hence, the present petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be considered as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.