Anmol Thapar vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Anmol Thapar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 02 dated 09.01.2025, registered under Sections 221, 238, and 305 of the BNS. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by a Food Safety Officer alleging the manufacturing of duplicate Desi Ghee at a residential building. During a raid on 12.02.2022, adulterated ghee and adulterants were found, and the premises were sealed. Subsequently, on 28.03.2023, it was discovered that the seal had been broken and the seized stock stolen. The petitioner claimed he was present only to inspect ghee quality for potential purchase and denied involvement in adulteration or theft. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner's failure to provide business details like GST numbers and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found the delay in registering the FIR (from 12.02.2022 to 09.01.2025) to be notable. It rejected the petitioner's claim of visiting the premises solely for quality inspection as implausible, especially given that the accused ran separate sweet shops. The Court considered the petitioner's and co-accused's failure to provide proper business details, such as GST numbers, as suspicious and indicative of a false narrative. The Court concluded that the petitioner's explanation was insufficient and unconvincing, and the ongoing concerns regarding adulteration and theft warranted custodial interrogation. Therefore, the Court held that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was imperative to explore all aspects of the case and advance the investigation. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of manufacturing adulterated ghee, tampering with seals, and theft of seized articles? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he had no connection with the firm Sharma Milk Products and was merely present to inspect ghee quality for his sweet shop. He contended that the investigating agency failed to implicate the building owner or ascertain the firm's owner. He asserted innocence, claiming the case was based on presumption and that the complainant failed to assist in the investigation. The petitioner also argued that no notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. was issued prior to FIR registration, and he was willing to cooperate. State's Arguments: The State argued for the dismissal of the petition, stating the petitioner failed to disclose essential business details like GST and sales tax numbers. They contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the factual position due to the broken seal and pending recovery of stolen items.