In a significant procedural challenge touching the misuse of criminal law in property disputes, the Supreme Court stepped in to examine whether an accused could be denied protection from arrest in a case rooted in a civil disagreement over possession of immovable property. The case raised a pointed question on when allegations of trespass and theft cross from civil discord into criminal culpability.
The controversy began when an FIR was registered alleging that the appellant, along with others, trespassed into a house and removed articles lying inside. The complainant claimed possession on the strength of an agreement to sell executed in August 2025. The appellant’s bail pleas were rejected by both the trial court and the High Court, prompting an approach to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of proceedings, interim protection from coercive steps was granted, subject to cooperation with the investigation.
The State argued that the appellant was evasive during questioning, while the defence countered that mere refusal to answer certain questions could not be equated with non-cooperation, especially when the dispute itself was essentially civil in nature and co-accused had already secured bail.
Weighing the competing considerations, the Apex Court drew a clear distinction between criminal investigation and compelled self-incrimination. The Bench observed that “not answering to the questions of the IO would not ipso facto mean there is non-cooperation,” and took note of the underlying civil dispute over property as well as the fact that similarly placed co-accused were already on bail.
Finding continued denial of protection unwarranted, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the appellant be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject to conditions and regular appearance before the Trial Court.
Case Title: Shally Mahant @ Sandeep Vs. State Of Punjab
Case No.: @SLP(CRL.) NO.20 OF 2026
Coram: Hon'ble. Justice Aravind Kumar, Hon'ble. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Manav Bhalla, Adv. Tushar Bathija, Adv. Rupendra Chauhan, AOR. Aishwarya Singh,
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR. Siddhant Sharma, Adv. Vikram Choudhary,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
