Mahabir Singh Vs State of Punjab

This is an application un d er Section 528 of BNSS, 2 0 23 seeking permission to place on record the amended petition by amending the head not e and the prayer clause of the pet i tion.

¶14

For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed as pra y ed for, subj e ct to all just exceptions. Re g istry to take the necessary st e ps accordin g ly.

¶15

CRM-M-39842-2025

¶16

Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitio n er seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest b a il under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik S uraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein a fter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No. 8 2 dated 21.05.2025 registere d for offences punishable un d er Sections 2 5 (6), (7), (8) and 54/59 of Ar m s Act and Section 336(3) of B N S, 2023 (Se c tions 111, 346, 303(2), 317 (2 ) and 61(2) of BNS added later on

¶17

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-39842-2025 (O&M) 2

¶19

vide GD No.36 dated 17.08.2025) at P o lice Station Khem Karan, Dist r ict Tarn Tar a n.

¶20

The gravamen of the FI R pertains to an incident which occurred on 21.05.2025 when ASI Vin o d Kumar, alongwith other po l ice officials w as on patrol duty, he received a reliable information that accu s ed Jagmoha n Singh alias Jaggu of village K allas and Mahbir Singh of vill a ge Duhal N a u (petitioner herein) are havi n g links with Pakistani smuggl e rs. All these accused allegedly arrange illeg a l weapons from across the bor d er and supp l y them in Tarn Taran and other parts of Punjab. The infor m er further s t ated that Jagmohan Singh w a s present in village Kallas w ith weapons and smuggling money. Actin g on this information, ASI Vi n od Kumar p r epared a report under Sections 25(6)(7)(8)/54/59 of the Arms A ct and direc t ed registration of a case and p r oceeded with the team to raid the village a nd arrested the accused. Co n sequently, the instant FIR w as registere d and investigation ensued. D u ring the course of investigation, accused J agmohan Singh @ Jaggu was a rrested and recovery of one 9 M M pistol wi t h catridges; one 30 bore pistol with empty magazine and ot h er arms wer e effected. Another co-accuse d Harpreet Singh @ Roda was a lso apprehen d ed with arms and currency. S ubsequently on the disclosure of Jagmoha n Singh, one Lakhan Singh w a s also arrayed as an accused a nd recovery o f a 9MM Glock pistol with ma g azines and cartridges was mad e . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitione r has been falsely implicated i n to the FIR in question. Lear n ed counsel has further iterated that neither a n y recovery has been effected fr o m the petiti o ner nor his name was mention e d in the confessional statement s of AJAY KUMAR2025.09.12 15:27 the co-accused. It is further iterated th a t the FIR is the result of vill a ge I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CRM-M-39842-2025 (O&M) 3

¶22

rivalry regarding land demarcation and t he complainant (a police offici a l), who has s ince been suspended, has mis u sed his official position to falsely implicate the petitioner. Learned counse l has further iterated that the o n ly ground f o r nominating the petitioner is h is relation as cousin of co-accu s ed Jagmoha n Singh. Learned counsel furt h er asserts that nothing is to be recovere d from the possession of the p etitioner and thus, his custo d ial interroga t ion is neither warranted nor ju s tified. It is next submitted by the learned c ounsel that the petitioner is r e ady to join the investigation a nd hence no useful purpose would be serve d by sending him behind the b a rs. On the basis of the aforementioned su b missions, the grant of the instant petition i s entreated for. 4. Per contra, learned State c o unsel (on the strength of adva n ce notice) has opposed the grant of anti c ipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing t hat the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has iterated that the petit i oner is involved in cross-bor d er smugglin g of arms with the assistance of Pakistani smugglers. He h as further c o ntended that the co-accused w h o have already been apprehen d ed with sop h isticated weapons and cash demonstrates the gravity of the offence. F urthermore, the petitioner is s p ecifically named in the FIR an d is alleged t o be a part of the unlawful nexus. The investigation is s till underwa y and custodial interrogation of t he petitioner is essential to une a rth the large r conspiracy, identify other me m bers of the smuggling networ k as also for a fair and thorough investigatio n . He has further emphasized that releasing the petitioner on bail at this cru c ial stage may hamper the ongo i ng investiga t ion and potentially lead to tam p ering with evidence or influenc i ng AJAY KUMAR2025.09.12 15:27 of witnes s es. Accordingly, a prayer has b een made for the dismissal of the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-39842-2025 (O&M) 4

¶24

instant p e tition in order to facilitate effe c tive investigation into the alle g ed offence.

¶25

I have heard the learned co u nsel for the rival parties and h a ve gone thro u gh the available record of the c ase.

¶26

As per the case put forth i n the FIR in question, indubita b ly, serious allegations have been levelled ag a inst the petitioner. The FIR, on the face of it , discloses grave allegations of s muggling of arms from across the international border. The recovery of m u ltiple firearms and cartridges fr o m co-accus e d during investigation lends cr e dibility to the prosecution vers i on and cann o t be ignored at this stage. The r o le of the petitioner, as specific a lly recorded in the FIR, cannot be brushed a side as his name finds mentio n ed therein o n the basis of secret and reli a ble information received by the investiga t ing officer. The contention t h at the petitioner has been falsely implicate d merely due to his relationship with the co-accused is a matte r of defence w hich can only be examined dur i ng the course of trial and not at the stage of c onsidering a plea for anticipato r y bail. Prima facie, the allegati o ns against t he petitioner disclose his a c tive involvement in the lar g er conspiracy of cross-border smuggling of a rms. 7. Furthermore, the argument t hat the name of the petitioner d id not find f igure in the confessional statement of co-accused is of no avail , as at this st a ge the investigation is at a cruc i al stage. Considering the recov e ry of sophi s ticated arms and ammunitio n from the co-accused and the possibilit y of further recoveries, this Co u rt of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary to unearth the broader c o nspiracy and identify further m embers of the smuggling netw o rk. AJAY KUMAR2025.09.12 15:27 No cause nay plausible cause has been s hown, at this stage, from whic h it I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-39842-2025 (O&M) 5

¶28

can be d e ciphered that the petitioner h a s been falsely implicated into the present F IR. It goes without saying that the gravity of the offence, its potential impact on public order and n ational security and the stage of investiga t ion, all weigh against the gran t of anticipatory bail. It is settled law that anticipatory bail is an extraor d inary remedy and should not be granted u n less exceptional/accentuating c ircumstances are shown, which are absent in the present case. The nominati o n of the petitioner is not based on mere sus p icion but is supported by corro b orative evidence. 8. The plea of the parity with t he co-accused is misplaced as the grant of bail depends upon the role at t ributed to each individual. T he petitione r is specifically named in the FI R . The fact that the co-accused h as been gra n ted the concession of regular bail cannot, by itself, entitle the petitione r to the same. The allegatio n s in the FIR coupled with the investiga t ion conducted so far, prima f a cie indicate the commission of a grave of fe nce. It is well settled that the principle of parity is not absolute and cann o t be applied mechanically in al l circumstances. Each case must be evaluate d on its own facts and the natur e and role of each accused is to be independ e ntly assessed.

¶29

It is befitting to mention he r e that while considering a plea for grant of a nticipatory bail, the Court has t o equilibrate between safeguard i ng individua l rights and protecting societ a l interest(s). The Court ought to reckon w i th the magnitude and nature o f the offence; the role attribute d to the accus e d; the need for fair and free i n vestigation as also the deeper a nd wide impact of such alleged iniquities o n the society. At this stage, ther e is no mater i al on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out aga i nst AJAY KUMAR2025.09.12 15:27 the petiti o ner. The material which has come on record and prelimin a ry I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CRM-M-39842-2025 (O&M) 6

¶31

investiga t ion, appear to establish a rea s onable basis for the accusati o ns. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anti c ipatory bail to the petitioner, a s it would necessarily cause impediment in e ffective investigation. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 1 8 9, para 6)

¶32

“6. We find force in the submiss i on of CBI that custodial interrogatio n is qualitatively more elicitation-ori e nted than questioning a suspect wh o is well-ensconced with a favourabl e order under Section 438 of the Cod e . In a case like this, effective inte r rogation of a suspected person i s of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and a lso materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is w ell protected and insulated by a pr e -arrest bail order during the time h e is interrogated. Very often interrog a tion in such a condition would reduc e to a mere ritual. The argument th a t the custodial interrogation is fra u ght with the danger of the person b eing subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, s u ch an argument can be advanced b y all accused in all criminal cases. T h e Court has to presume that respons i ble police officers would conduct t h emselves in task of disintering offe n ces would not conduct themselves as o ffenders.”

¶33

In view of the gravity of th e offence coupled with the fact that the petiti o ner is specifically named in t h e FIR and is alleged to be par t of unlawful nexus, pending recovery of t h e weapon(s) and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a fair and t horough investigation as also to identify o ther members of the smuggl i ng network, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner d o es not deserve the concession of anticipat o ry bail in the factual milieu of t h e case in hand. 11. In view of the prevenient rat i ocination, it is ordained thus:

¶34

(i) The instant petition is devoi d of merits and is hereby dismis s ed. (ii) Nothing said hereinabove s h all be deemed to be an express i on of opinio n upon merits of the case/investi g ation.

¶35

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CRM-M-39842-2025 (O&M) 7

¶37

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

¶38

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶39

Septemb e r 12, 2025 Ajay Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶40

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.12 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mahabir Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabir Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurpal Singh Alias Gopa and Another Vs State of Punjab

Baljinder Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sukhpreet Singh Alias Sukhi Vs State of Punjab

Anand Singh Vs Suresh Kumar

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gurdeep Singh Alias Deepak Vs State of Haryana