Mithu Kumar vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 4689 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mithu Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 3 November, 2025

CRM-M--59477-2025                                                           1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

103-2                                              CRM-M-59477-2025
                                                 Date of decision: 03.11.202
                                                                        .2025
Mithu Kumar
                                                           ....Petitioner
                                         V/s
State of Punjab
                                                           ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Ishwinderpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS')

for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR

No.97 of 2024 dated 07.12.2024,, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station GRP, RP,

Jalandhar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

2. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, it reflects that

the GRP, Jalandhar, initiated proceedings after discovering the body of a 32

years old man near Kilometer 39/32-34 39/32 34 Railway Track. The deceased had

multiple injuries -- five on the right cheek, two on the left cheek and one

each behind the head and left ear. An FIR was registered against unknown

persons.

ersons. During inspection, the police found a bunch of hair clutched in the

left fist of the deceased, deceased which, alongwith bloodstained soil was collected as

evidence. On 11.12.2024, Subhash Yadav identified the deceased as Ashish

Kumar son of Parshotam Yadav Yadav from Bihar. On 15.12.2024, Chunni Lal

1 of 9

Yadav stated that his nephew Sonu Yadav had confessed to killing deceased

Ashish Kumar. Sonu disclosed that on 04.12.2024, after an arguments and a

slap from Ashish Kumar, he took him to the railway tracks on 05.12 05.12.2024 .2024

made him consume liquor excessively and attacked him with a sharp edged

weapon. Sonu was later apprehended while attempting to flee. During the

course of interrogation, Sonu (a juvenile) revealed that he had been

contacted via WhatsApp by Mithu (petitioner (petitioner herein) and Pujesh Yadav,

who were allegedly embroiled in a land dispute with the father of the

deceased,, Ashish Kumar. They allegedly offered him Rs.3.00 lacs to murder

Ashish Kumar. It has been further alleged that the Sonu had admitted to

killing g Ashish after intoxicating him and later assisted the police in

recovering ing the weapon and other incriminating items concealed in bushes.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

petitioner is an innocent person who has been falsely iimplicated mplicated into the

FIR in question. The petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the

alleged offence. Learned counsel has further iterated that the name of the

petitioner does not appear in the FIR and has been roped in solely on the

basis of the disclosure disclosure statement of Sonu Kumar (Juvenile (Juvenile-in-Conflict Conflict with

law). Learned counsel has further submitted that the entire case rest purely

on hearsay and on successive statements recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C./180 BNSS, which possesses no evidentiary valu value in the eyes of law.

According to learned counsel, there exists no direct or circumstantial

evidence whatsoever connecting the petitioner with the commission of

alleged crime. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has place reliance

on the judgment of of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Parvat Singh v.

2 of 9

State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 4 SCC 33 to contend that statements

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against the accused

except for contradictions. According to learned counsel, the alle allegations gations

levelled against the petitioner are false, frivolous and baseless. A bare

reading of the FIR discloses that no prima facie case is made out against the

petitioner and his name has been roped in the FIR without any cogent basis.

Furthermore, the custodial custodial interrogation should not be used as a punitive

measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary for the recovery of

material evidence. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner is ready to

join the investigation and hence no useful purpos purposee would be served by

sending him behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the

grant of instant petition is entreated for.

4. Per contra, learned earned State counsel has opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence is grave and

serious in nature. Learned State counsel has iterated that tthe he offence in

question is heinous and premeditated, involving a contract killing executed

through a juvenile. According to learned State counsel, tthe he disclosure

statement of Sonu Kumar clearly implicates the petitioner, who allegedly

offered a monetary inducement of ₹3 3 lakhs to commit the murder on

account of a land dispute with the family of the deceased. Furthermore, the t

recovery of the weapon and other incriminating articles pursuant to the

disclosure lends material corroboration to the prosecution case. Learned

State counsel has further iterated that the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is imperative to unearth the financial trail and ascertain the extent

of the larger conspiracy. It is contended that the ggrant rant of anticipatory bail at

3 of 9

this stage may hamper the ongoing investigation and lead to tampering with

evidence or exert undue influence upon witnesses, particularly in view of

the fact that all the accused hail from the same village in Bihar.

Accordingly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition

in order to facilitate effective investigation into the alleged offence.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and have

gone through the available record of the case.

6. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak

Yashwant Patil and a another passed in SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022, relevant

whereof reads as under:

"74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to o interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information.

             xxx                     xxx                    xxx                   xxx
             xxx                     xxx                    xxx                   xxx

75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 933] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 313, para 19) "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connectio connection n of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to

4 of 9

curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance drance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. T The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court rt in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an applica application tion under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."

76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514],, the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with antic anticipatory ipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

77. After referring to Siddharam dharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra,, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :

(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail iin n a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant icant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of

5 of 9

Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam N Narain arain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)"

Economic offences

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised ed sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate ectorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510],, it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail."

15. In Sushila Agrawal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 11,, Constitution Bench of this Court held that while considering an application for grant of pre pre-arrest arrest bail the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the th likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:

held:-

"92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the rol rolee attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (o (orr not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court."

7. As per the case put forth in the FIR in question, indubitably,

serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The allegations

against the petitioner p are grave and serious in nature and the he nature of the

act i.e. the conspiracy to commit murder for monetary gain indicates motive

and premeditation. Although the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C./180

BNSS are not admissible as substantive evid evidence but the same can form part

of the investigation justifying further inquiry and custodial interrogation at

the pre-trial trial stage. At this stage, the Court cannot ignore the seriousness of

6 of 9

the allegations and the nature of the offence which involves commi committing tting

murder of a person. In the considered opinion of this Court, at the stage of

considering the plea for anticipatory bail, the Court is not to evaluate the

evidence but only to see whether prima facie allegations disclose a serious

offence. The disclosure sure statement of the juvenile accused, which has led to

recovery of the weapon of offence and other incriminating articles from the

place of concealment, cannot be ignored while considering the plea for grant

of anticipatory bail.

8. Furthermore, the recovery when read in conjunction with the

motive arising out of the property dispute, prima facie establishes a nexus

between the petitioner and the alleged offence. The investigation is at a

crucial stage and granting anticipatory bail at this juncture m may ay seriously

impede the process of investigation, particularly the tracing of the financial

transaction allegedly promised to the juvenile for the commission of the

crime. The possibility of the petitioner absconding or exerting influence

over witnesses cannot cannot be ruled out, considering his proximity to the co-

co

accused and the gravity of the allegations. In the considered opinion of this

Court, granting anticipatory bail at this stage may hamper the ongoing

investigation. No cause nay plausible cause has been shown, at this stage,

from which it can be deciphered that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated into the present FIR. Moreover, the seriousness of the offence

involving the loss of human life and the alleged role of the petitioner in

facilitating the the commission of the crime cannot be lightly brushed aside and

prime facie indicates complicity of the petitioner.

7 of 9

9. Upon careful perusal of the material on record and the nature of

allegations levelled, this Court is of the considered view that there exists a

specific and direct accusation upon the petitioner. The role ascribed to the

petitioner is not vague or omnibus but is rather precise meriting no

indulgence at this preliminary stage of investigation. It is befitting to

mention here that while considering considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the

Court has to equilibrate between safeguarding individual rights and

protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude

and nature of the offence; the role attributed to the acc accused;

used; the need for fair

and free investigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged

iniquities on the society. At this stage, there is no material on record to hold

that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. Thus, it is not

appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would

necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation. In State v. Anil

Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] 1039], the Supreme me Court

held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

"6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring terring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed.

led. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-

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 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 at responsible police officers would conduct themselves in

8 of 9

a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.

offenders."

10. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the specific role

attributed tributed to the petitioner and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a

fair and thorough investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in the

factual milieu of the case in hand.

11. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

(i) The instant petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ii) Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression

of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.

case/investigation.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

                                                     (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                        JUDGE

November 03, 2025
Ajay


             Whether speaking/reasoned:                 Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                        Yes/No




                                9 of 9