Sony Rishi Alias Soni Rishi Alias Sonu vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court referenced Supreme Court judgments in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, and Gurbaksh Singh Sibba etc. v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary and exceptional remedy, to be exercised sparingly and cautiously. The Court noted the prosecution's specific stand that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy involving a forged document and that his custodial interrogation is of utmost necessity to fix his role. Denying this opportunity would hinder the investigation. Given the serious allegations of impersonation before the Registration Authority, custodial interrogation is crucial to pinpoint the role of each accused. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Sony Rishi, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in FIR No. 139 dated 11.06.2025, registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The FIR stemmed from a complaint alleging the formation of fake firms by Mitul Gupta, Harsh Guptam, Ravinder Sharma, and others to defraud GST authorities. A Special Investigating Team (SIT) found the petitioner to be the proprietor of M/s Neelkanth Enterprises. Investigations revealed that on 11.08.2022, M/s Shivam Ispat Bhandar purportedly sold a plot to M/s Neelkanth Enterprises. However, the prosecution alleged that the petitioner was in jail on that date, and Ravinder Sharma impersonated him before the Registration Authority, forging the petitioner's photograph on his Aadhar card to facilitate the sale deed. The petitioner claimed innocence and an alibi, stating he was in custody during the sale deed execution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of conspiracy, forgery, and impersonation, and the prosecution's need for custodial interrogation? (Question of law and mixed fact and law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is innocent and has no nexus with the alleged offense. He asserted a strong alibi, being in custody at the time of the sale deed execution, thus no criminal liability can be fastened upon him for a forged sale deed. He claimed to be a victim of fraud. Furthermore, he contended that the offense is triable by a Judicial Magistrate, nothing is left to be recovered, and custodial interrogation is not required. Respondent's (State of Punjab) Arguments: The State counsel argued that the forgery was committed with the active connivance of the petitioner and his co-accused, Ravinder Sharma. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is of utmost importance to fix his role in the commission of the crime. Denying custodial interrogation would hamper the investigation and amount to injustice to the victim of the fraud.