Balwinder Pal vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Balwinder Pal, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 61 dated 05.06.2025, registered under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant, Naresh Kumar Gulati, who alleged that the petitioner, his younger brother, stole goods from a departmental store and an electric showroom. A compromise agreement between the brothers stipulated that the petitioner would pay Rs. 9,26,000/- and return shop equipment to the supplier. The complainant alleged the petitioner violated this agreement by breaking locks and stealing goods on the night of 26.05.2024. The petitioner contended that the dispute was civil in nature, related to a joint business, and that the goods were returned to the supplier.

Held

The Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which was later made absolute. The Court considered several factors: the offence being triable by a Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner's clean antecedents, the fact that the dispute arose from a joint business and concerned accounting of profits and liabilities, and that the goods were to be returned to the supplier as per the compromise. The Court noted the delay in reporting the incident and lodging the FIR, and that the evidence was primarily documentary. It was also observed that custodial interrogation was not likely to serve any purpose, and there was no indication that the petitioner would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail. The Court also noted that remedies existed under the Negotiable Instruments Act and Specific Relief Act for the dishonoured cheque. The petitioner was directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Arresting Officer and abide by the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of theft and breach of a compromise agreement? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the dispute was civil, arising from a joint business with his brother. He contended that the goods were returned to the supplier as per the compromise, and invoices and GST claims were generated for these transactions, negating any theft. He also pointed to the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the evidence being documentary. Respondent's arguments: The State, assisted by the complainant's counsel, argued that there were specific allegations of theft captured on CCTV. They contended that the petitioner breached the agreement by stopping payment of a cheque for Rs. 9,26,000/-, and therefore, no grounds for anticipatory bail were made out.