Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sajan Singh Alias Akash Jha vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
107
CRM-M-65505-2025
Sajan Singh @ Akash Jha
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent(s)
Decided on : 20.11.2025
Date of uploading: 20.11.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Harkirat Singh Bhogal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the BNSS')
for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR
No.192 dated 30.10.2021, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 393, 394, 399, 307 of IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at
Police Station Daresi, District Ludhiana.
2. The gravamen of the FIR in question reflects that on
30.10.2021, SI Davinder Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station
Daresi, Ludhiana, along with other police officials, was present in the area of
ICICI Chowk on patrolling duty when he received a telephonic call from one
Surjit Kumar son of Joginderpal, informing him that one Sunny Sharma son
of Paramjit Sharma had been admitted to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana, with a
1 of 8
CRM-M-65505-2025 Page |2
gunshot injury, who was stated to be the Manager of Muthoot Fincorp Bank
Limited, Branch Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana. Upon receiving the said
information, SI Davinder Singh proceeded to DMC Hospital with the police
party. After obtaining the medical fitness certificate from the doctor
concerned, he recorded the statement of said Sunny Sharma, who stated that
the Bank Branch operates from 09:30 AM to 06:00 PM and that a private
gunman, Surjit Kumar armed with a DBBL 12-bore small butt gun, had been
posted at the branch for the last six months. Other employees namely Ritu
Thaman, Ginny and Simranjit Kaur were also present at the time of the
occurrence. The complainant-Sunny Sharma further stated that after
sometime two persons entered the Branch and when questioned by the
security guard, they said they wished to mortgage a gold chain for a loan and
him. One of them, aged about 30 years, handed over a gold chain for
weighing and as the complainant began checking its weight, both individuals
suddenly took out their weapons and demanded the key to the locker
containing gold. The complainant has further stated that he had refused to
give key and, thereafter, one of them struck him on the head with the butt of
the weapon. He raised an alarm, then two other persons entered the Bank
and one of them fired at him, which hit his right bicep. The complainant had
further stated that upon hearing the cries of the staff and the gunshot, the
guard Surjit Kumar opened fire from his gun, injuring the assailant who had
fired upon him, due to which the said person fall near the entrance. The
remaining three assailants fled with their weapons. The complainant further
stated that if he had not resisted and the guard had not fired back, the
attackers could have caused loss of life and property. In the complaint, it
was further recorded that after informing the senior officers of the Bank, the
2 of 8
CRM-M-65505-2025 Page |3
complainant-Sunny Sharma was thereafter taken to DMC Hospital,
Ludhiana for treatment. One of the deceased accused was identified as
Amar Partap Singh, son of Sh. Inderjeet Singh, resident of Village Rasalpur,
Post Office Uriawan, Police Station Ikangar Sarai, District Nalanda, Bihar.
Thereafter, on 25.02.2022, the petitioner (herein) was nominated as an
accused in the present case. Efforts were made to apprehend him and during
this process, it came to notice of the police that he is already in custody in
another case, FIR No. 97 dated 20.02.2022, registered under Sections 452,
323, 395, 397, 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police
Station Raniganj, Calcutta, and is lodged in Asansol District Correctional
Home, Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal. However, his production
warrants are being declined as the concerned Sessions Court before whom
the said case is pending trial--has refused to grant permission for his
production. On these set of allegations, instant FIR was registered against
the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
accused is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the police
have failed to show any connection of the petitioner with one of the
deceased accused person. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
further argued that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged incident.
He further submits that as the petitioner lodged in Correctional Home,
Asansol District, West Bengal, in some other case, there is no chance of his
absconding. Learned counsel asserts that the in the instant case, the FIR
fails to include material facts, which further raised questions about its
credibility and fairness. Moreover, the custodial interrogation should not be
3 of 8
CRM-M-65505-2025 Page |4
used as a punitive measure and is justified only when absolutely necessary
for the recovery of material evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to
join the investigation and hence no useful purpose would be served by
sending him behind the bars. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that
the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted the concession
of the anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel opposed the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the offence is of a serious
nature as he had attempted robbery in the bank and one of his co-accused
opened fire on the complainant. The investigation qua the FIR in question is
still ongoing and recovery of weapons is to be effected from the petitioner.
Learned State counsel has iterated that the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is imperative for the purpose of effective and fair investigation and
to unearth the case of the prosecution. According to learned State counsel, in
case the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest, at this stage, it
may impede the ongoing investigation.
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 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 bail is to strike a balance between the
individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating
agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to
4 of 8
CRM-M-65505-2025 Page |5
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 connection 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
curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without
hindrance 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. 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 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 application
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 anticipatory 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 Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 :
(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that
5 of 8
CRM-M-65505-2025 Page |6
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 in 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 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
Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC
213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain
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 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 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 1, Constitution Bench of this Court
held that while considering an application for grant of pre-arrest bail the
Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the
likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with
evidence or likelihood of fleeing justice. The Court held:-
"92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such
as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role 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 (or not imposed) are
dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the
court."
7. As per the allegations set forth in the FIR, serious charges have
undeniably been levelled against the present petitioner of robbery/theft. The
6 of 8
CRM-M-65505-2025 Page |7
petitioner is alleged to be a member of a gang involved in committing
robberies and thefts by using firearms. The custodial interrogation of such a
gang member is crucial for uncovering the entire conspiracy, identifying
other similar offences committed by the group, tracing incriminating
evidence and weapons used, and effecting their recovery. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the case registered against
him is false.
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.
8. It is befitting to mention here that while 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 accused; the need for fair and free investigation as also the deeper and
wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. It is imperative that
every person in the Society can expect an atmosphere free from foreboding
& fear of any transgression. At this stage, there is no material on record to
hold that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner. The
material which has come on record and preliminary investigation, appear to
be established a reasonable basis for the accusations. 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
[State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039], the
Supreme 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 than questioning a suspect who is well-
7 of 8
CRM-M-65505-2025 Page |8
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 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
offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."
9. In view of the gravity of the allegations and nature of offence,
since the necessity of custodial interrogation would arise 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
matrix of the case in hand. Moreover, custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is necessary for an effective investigation & to unravel the truth.
The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression
of opinion upon merits of the case/investigation.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
November 20, 2025
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
