Prabhjot Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

Two petitions for anticipatory bail were filed by Prabhjot Singh and Sohan Lal, who were implicated in FIR No. 267 dated 05.11.2025, registered under Sections 306, 316(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala. The FIR was based on a complaint by Hindustan Unilever Limited, alleging that the petitioners, along with co-accused, robbed the company of chemical supplies valued at approximately Rs. 37 lacs plus GST. The modus operandi involved using the same number plate on two different trucks to deceive weighment bridge cameras and conceal the theft. The petitioners' bail applications were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. This Court had previously ordered no coercive action against them. The petitioners claimed false implication, while the State and complainant argued for their involvement and the need for custodial interrogation for recovery.

Held

The Court held that the complicity of the petitioners in the alleged offence has been prima facie established. The investigation is at its initial stage, and granting anticipatory bail at this juncture would hinder the ongoing investigation. The Court referred to Section 482 of the BNS, 2023, outlining the parameters for granting anticipatory bail, and cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that factors like the gravity of the offence, the chances of the accused tampering with evidence, and the probability of them fleeing from justice must be considered. The Court found that the role attributed to the petitioners appeared integral to the commission of the alleged offence, and custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery and to unravel the conspiracy. Therefore, the petitioners did not qualify for the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail. The Court explicitly stated that nothing said in the judgment should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023, given the allegations of their involvement in a criminal conspiracy leading to the theft of goods worth approximately Rs. 37 lacs plus GST? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated. Prabhjot Singh, a Security Guard, argued that changing number plates was outside his domain and could be verified by CCTV footage. Sohan Lal, an Assistant Technician Trainee, argued he was only responsible for supervising unloading and maintaining records, not for truck entry/exit weights, and that any misappropriation occurred at the weighment bridge stage, involving drivers and weighbridge personnel. They asserted no prima facie case was made out. Respondent's (State and Complainant) arguments: The State and complainant argued that serious allegations existed, and inquiry reports indicated the petitioners' involvement. They submitted that Prabhjot Singh was present at the factory gate and weighbridge, facilitating the illegal movement of trucks. They contended the petitioners' role was grave, deliberate, and indispensable to the conspiracy, causing significant financial loss. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for recovery of the robbed amount and to unearth the conspiracy. They relied on Supreme Court precedents like State represented by CBI Vs. Anil Sharma and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab regarding the considerations for anticipatory bail.