Sarabjit Singh Alias Sunny vs State Of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The instant 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 the following FIR:-

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that, pursuant to secret information, the petitioner, along with co-accused Rana Partap Singh, was allegedly operating a de-addiction centre from a house situated in Guru Arjan Dev Colony, Tarn Taran. The petitioner is further alleged to have projected himself as a doctor and to have kept persons illegally confined and subjected them to intimidation at the said premises.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that no statements of the persons allegedly rescued from the premises were recorded by the investigating agency at the relevant time. It is further contended that the petitioner is neither a doctor nor ever represented himself as one and has no ownership, tenancy, possession or other connection with the premises or the alleged de-addiction centre. No specific overt act or particular victim has been attributed to the petitioner. Reliance is also placed upon the order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, whereby co-accused Rana Partap Singh was granted regular bail and prayed that petition be allowed.

Status report by way of affidavit of Sukhbir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran, on behalf of respondent-State of Punjab, is taken on record.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and that he has been specifically named in the FIR. It is contended that the petitioner was allegedly operating the de-addiction centre, falsely portraying himself as a doctor and facilitating the illegal confinement and intimidation of persons therein. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted for an effective and comprehensive investigation.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and, with their able assistance, have meticulously examined the paper-book and the material placed on record. The status report reveals that the entire raid and rescue proceedings were videographed through the eSakshya App and that the requisite certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the BSA has been appended on record. It is further borne out that as many as seven persons were rescued from the premises, the particulars whereof are as under:-

The disclosure statement of co-accused Rana Pratap Singh, who has since been enlarged on regular bail, specifically attributes the operation and management of the de-addiction centre, namely, Umeed Drug De-Addiction Centre, to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was paying ₹7,000-8,000/- per month to the said co-accused, while collecting ₹10,000-12,000/- per month from the persons admitted therein. The centre is further stated to have 10 single beds and to have been functioning without the requisite licence or statutory authorisation. Significantly, Annexure R4/T, i.e. the rent deed executed by the petitioner with Kulwant Kaur, constitutes independent documentary material prima facie establishing his connection with and possession of the premises from which the alleged activities were being carried on. This circumstance assumes considerable significance when read conjointly with the disclosure statement of the co-accused and the allegation of unauthorised operation of the centre. The investigating agency is, therefore, required to ascertain the precise role of the petitioner, the manner in which the centre was established and operated, the financial dealings connected therewith, the persons admitted therein, and the possible involvement of other persons. In the considered view of this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would facilitate a more effective investigation into these material aspects, which cannot appropriately be foreclosed at the present stage by extending the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded herein are confined strictly to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as a final or definitive expression on the merits of the allegations, evidence or defence, which shall be considered independently by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage and in accordance with law.