Khokhan Hawaldar vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

This case involves a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Khokhan Hawaldar (the petitioner) under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petition arises from FIR No. 39 dated 26.02.2026, registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, for offences under Sections 103 & 104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351, 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by Prabhjot Singh, alleging that the petitioner and others dishonestly used the trademark 'G.K.' and fabricated documents in the name of the complainant's firm, 'M/s G.K. Traders', which has been manufacturing cycle/rickshaw parts since 1961. The complainant alleged wrongful loss and gain, and further, that the accused visited his office and threatened him to withdraw pending cases. A civil suit concerning the dispute was already pending.

Held

The Court held that the petition for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner was apprehended at the airport pursuant to a Look-Out Circular and produced before a Magistrate who granted him interim/transit bail with a direction to appear before the trial court. The Court cited Supreme Court judgments in Dhirhanraj Aswani and Kamal Sabharwal, which established that once an accused is arrested and produced before a court, the remedy available is to apply for regular bail under Section 437 or 439 of the CrPC, and the option for pre-arrest bail is no longer available. The Court observed that even though the petitioner was on interim/transit bail, he was deemed to be in custody, and in constructive custody, once the warrant of arrest was executed. Therefore, the petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court clarified that these observations do not express an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present petition for pre-arrest bail is maintainable when the petitioner was apprehended at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata, on 09.05.2026, pursuant to a Look-Out Circular, and produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, West Bengal, who granted him interim/transit bail with a direction to appear before the trial court at Ludhiana by 12.05.2026. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the FIR essentially pertains to a civil dispute regarding the use of a trademark and corporate dealings, and that the FIR was lodged to intimidate him. He argued that a civil suit was already pending, and the present petitioner is a director of one of the companies involved. He further argued that the pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 18.04.2026, and that the FIR was lodged after the petitioner was named as an accused. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka & Ors. to argue that a petition for pre-arrest bail is maintainable even if the petitioner was not in custody at the time of filing. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and the complainant controverted the petitioner's arguments. They contended that once the petitioner was apprehended due to the Look-Out Circular and granted interim/transit bail, the petition for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. They argued that the petitioner has been arrested and is deemed to be in constructive custody, making the pre-arrest bail petition infructuous.