Hoshiar Singh Dahiya And Another vs. State Of Punjab

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.25 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Jaivir Singh Atwal against Joint Stock Company Industrial Association Vozrozhdenie (JSC), its Directors and authorised signatory, including Hoshiar Singh Dahiya, petitioner No.1, and Praveen Kumar, petitioner No.2, alleging therein that the aforesaid JSC had been awarded by the National Highways Authority of India, a project relating to construction of a four-lane greenfield expressway connecting Amritsar with the Delhi-Amritsar-Katra Expressway. It was alleged that, pursuant thereto, Vozrozhdenie India Pvt. Ltd. (VIPL), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of aforementioned JSC, entered into a Work Order Agreement dated 04.04.2024 with the complainant's company for execution of certain works forming part of the said project, for a value stated to be approximately Rs.240 crores. It was further alleged that prior to his company commencing work on the project, VIPL had engaged another subcontractor which had failed to perform its contractual obligations and, consequently, NHAI had issued cure period notices. According to the complainant, in order to avoid termination of the contract, the accused persons fraudulently induced his company to take over the project.

As per the further allegations, claim for an amount of approximately Rs.20 crores relating to work executed in the Meghalaya project had been raised by the complainant's company, against which VIPL had MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.25 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

It would be apposite to notice here that apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid FIR, the petitioners initially approached the District Courts, Saket, Delhi, seeking transit anticipatory bail. Interim protection from arrest was granted to them on 15.04.2026. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.04.2026, the Saket District Court dismissed their transit bail applications, while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court of competent territorial juri iction for appropriate relief and the interim protection earlier granted to them was also vacated. Availing the liberty so granted, the petitioners immediately approached the Sessions Court at Amritsar by filing applications for anticipatory bail. The said applications came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide orders dated 06.05.2026. 5. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have been implicated in this case merely on account of their association with VIPL and that there is no specific material showing their personal involvement in the alleged offences. It is submitted that petitioner No.2 has already ceased to be a Director of the company with effect from October, 2025, whereas petitioner No.1 is a senior citizen. The entire dispute arises out of a commercial transaction between two corporate entities concerning execution of work and payment of contractual dues. The Work Order Agreement contains an arbitration clause and, therefore, the complainant ought to have resorted to the agreed mechanism of arbitration instead of giving a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute. Learned Senior Counsel MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.25 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioners had already approached this Court by filing separate petitions seeking quashing of the impugned FIR, i.e. CRM-M-18367-2026 titled Hoshiar Singh Dahiya v. State of Punjab and another and CRM-M-18349-2026 titled Praveen Kumar v. State of Punjab and another. It is submitted that, vide order dated 06.04.2026, this Court issued notice in the said petitions and, while permitting the investigation to proceed, directed that the final report shall not be presented without the leave of the Court. Learned Senior Counsel submits that a Local Commissioner was also appointed by this Court to inspect the project site and prepare an inventory of the machinery allegedly retained/stolen and the report of the Local Commissioner was thereafter placed on record. It is argued that the aforesaid orders passed in the quashing proceedings demonstrate that the petitioners have already invoked the juri iction of this Court in respect of the very FIR and that the matter is pending consideration before this Court. It is further argued that, in view of the order dated 06.04.2026 passed in the quashing proceedings, the petitioners have been cooperating with the investigation and there is no justification for their custodial arrest, particularly MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.25 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

It is further argued that petitioner No.1, who is aged about 76 years and has recently undergone cardiac surgery, had even travelled to Amritsar on 21.04.2026 for joining the investigation but his statement was not recorded by the investigating agency. Petitioner No.2 has no criminal antecedents. They are ready to join the investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed. Learned senior counsel has relied upon Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694, Pawan Khera v. State of Assam, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 749, Pradip N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine 457 and Jang Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-50800 of 2025, decided on 23.03.2026 to contend that the powerful process of criminal law can be used to achieve extraneous ends; the personal liberty of an accused should not be taken away lightly; his arrest should be the last option restricted to exceptional cases and that where investigation is primarily based on official records and documents, custodial interrogation is not required.

Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned Senior Counsel representing the complainant, has opposed the petition by arguing that the allegations against the petitioners are serious and specific in nature. They are not confined to a simple dispute regarding payment of contractual dues. It is argued that the FIR contains specific allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents and misappropriation of substantial amounts. The investigation has revealed material requiring further verification, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.25 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the complainant, has argued that the petitioners have misused the interim protection earlier granted to them in the transit anticipatory bail proceedings as while enjoying such protection, the petitioners coerced a vendor of the complainant's company, namely ARB Engineer Service, into lodging a false and frivolous FIR against the complainant with a view to pressurise him into settling the present dispute. It is submitted that such conduct demonstrates an attempt to interfere with the investigation and influence witnesses. It is, thus, jointly submitted by learned State counsel as well as learned Senior Counsel for the complainant that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required to verify the circumstances surrounding certain documents and ledger entries, to prevent further fabrication of evidence, to ascertain the role of the petitioners in the creation of false documents and to recover the remaining machinery and articles allegedly removed from the project site. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the allegations contained in the FIR at this stage cannot stated only to be constituting a mere commercial or contractual dispute. The complainant has not alleged merely non-payment of contractual dues. The allegations are of a more serious nature i.e. the petitioners MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.25 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

The submission that the dispute is purely civil in nature merely because the parties had entered into a Work Order Agreement containing an arbitration clause also cannot be accepted at this stage. The existence of an arbitration clause may provide a remedy in respect of contractual disputes but it does not prevent investigation of allegations which, on their face, disclose commission of cognizable criminal offences. In the present case, the allegations go beyond a simple claim for recovery of money and include cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents and alleged misappropriation. Whether those allegations ultimately stand proved is a matter for investigation and trial; at the stage of considering anticipatory bail, the Court cannot undertake a meticulous examination of the defence sought to be raised by the petitioners. Equally, the contention that the relevant material is documentary in nature and, therefore, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition. The investigation is still underway. The investigating agency is required to verify the circumstances in which the alleged documents and invoices were prepared, the flow and utilisation of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.25 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

The personal circumstances of petitioner No.1, including his advanced age and the medical condition relied upon by learned Senior Counsel, as also the absence of criminal antecedents of petitioner No.2, have been considered. These circumstances are relevant considerations but cannot, by themselves, outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and the stand of the investigating agency requiring custodial interrogation. The pendency of the aforementioned quashing petitions also does not alter the position. The order dated 06.04.2026 passed therein permitted the investigation to proceed and directed that the final report should not be presented without the leave of this Court. The said order neither stayed the investigation nor granted the petitioners protection from arrest nor did it record any final finding on the allegations contained in the FIR. Therefore, the mere pendency of the quashing proceedings, or the interim directions issued therein, cannot be treated as creating an embargo upon consideration of the present prayer for anticipatory bail on its own merits.

The judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners do not advance their case in the facts presently before this Court. The principles laid down in the aforecited cases undoubtedly emphasise that anticipatory bail is intended to protect personal liberty and that arrest should not MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.08.25 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

On an overall consideration of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for exercise of the extraordinary discretionary juri iction for grant of anticipatory bail. The seriousness and magnitude of the allegations, the specific nature of the accusations, the stage of investigation and the requirement projected by the investigating agency for custodial interrogation outweigh the factors urged on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

2026