Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Ins t ant petition is preferred und e r Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraks h a Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B N SS’) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.91 d ated 17.11.2024 under Sectio n 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) [erstwhile Se c tion 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (fo r short ‘IPC’)] , registered at Pol i ce Station City Banga, District SBS Nagar.

¶14

On 06.03.2025, following order w a s passed:

¶15

“Instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Su r aksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking antici p atory bail in FIR No.91 dated 17.11.2024 under Secti o n 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) [erstwhile Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1 860 (for short ‘IPC’)], registered at Police Station City Ba n ga, District SBS Nagar.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the pet i tioner is running a registered investment business a nd deceased husband of the complainant made inves t ment with him. As per the case set up by the prosecution, the petitioner refused to meet

¶17

MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶18

CRM-M-12508-2025

¶19

2

¶20

deceased husband of the complainant. The alleged incident took place on 14.11.20 2 4, however, the suicide note was recovered after a perio d of three days i.e. on 17.11.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure P-3 and submits that tota l investment made by deceased husband of the compla i nant was Rs.13,51,102/-, out of which, he had already withdrawn more than Rs.12.00 lakhs. All the transactio n s of the firm are through website and no cash is either re c eived or paid and the investor can withdraw his money a s and when he requires. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment are clearly missing.

¶21

Notice of motion.

¶22

Mr. Subhash Go d ara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, a ccepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and s ubmits that there are several complaints pending aga i nst the petitioner. Even one FIR under Section 420 of IP C (now Section 318(4) of BNS) has been registered in Distri c t Ambala, Haryana.

¶23

Adjourned to 05. 0 4.2025.

¶24

Keeping in view t he ratio of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2010 SCC OnLine SC 137; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT Delhi 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 833 , the petitioner is directed to appear bef o re Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks fro m today and thereafter, as directed by the Investigating O ff icer. In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be admit t ed to interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall cooperate with the in v estigation/Arresting Officer and abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Secti o n 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

¶25

MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶26

CRM-M-12508-2025

¶27

3

¶28

If the Arrestin g Officer does not permit the petitioner to join the inv e stigation, he would appear before learned Illaqa Magistr a te, who would then summon the Arresting Officer and di r ect him to join the petitioner in the investigation, in terms o f the order of this Court.

¶29

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinio n by this Court and learned trial Court shall decide the c ase on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.”

¶30

Le a rned State counsel, on instruct i ons from SI Ram Lal, submits that in compli a nce of order dated 06.03.20 2 5 passed by this Court, the petitioner has j o ined the investigation and is n o t required for further custodial interrogation.

¶31

Ke e ping in view the statement m a de by learned State Counsel, the order dated 0 6.03.2025, is made absolute. T h e petitioner shall abide by the terms and con d itions enumerated in Section 4 82(2) BNSS, 2023 (Erstwhile Section 438(2) C r.P.C.)

¶32

Th e petition is accordingly dispose d of. 6. No t hing observed hereinabove s hall be construed to be an expression of o p inion by this Court lest it may p rejudice the trial. The learned trial Court is d i rected to proceed with the tria l on its own merits, strictly in accordance wit h law.

¶33

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) April 05, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶34

MANISHA 2025.04.05 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Atul Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Rampal Vs Rahul

Navneet Singh Alias Navi Vs State of Punjab

Divyansh Verma Vs State of Haryana and Others