Pawan Kumar vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail. The petition arose from FIR No. 0145 dated 21.12.2024, registered at Police Station Dayalpur, District Bathinda, under various sections of the BNSS, including those related to offenses under GST laws. The FIR was registered based on a complaint by Jatinder Kumar Bansal, a State Tax Officer, who alleged that while inspecting a shop, M/s Shri Bala Ji Bartan Store, the shop owner and others forcibly closed the shutters, confined the inspection team, and assaulted them. The petitioner was allegedly present and instigated the obstruction. The petitioner claims he was falsely implicated and that his shop, DC Metals, was searched on 18.12.2024, with no discrepancies found, but he was pressured to deposit Rs. 30,000/- as GST. He was granted interim bail on 20.01.2025, subject to joining the investigation.

Held

The Court allowed the petition and made the interim bail absolute. The Court reasoned that while the State argued for custodial interrogation due to the petitioner's alleged non-cooperation, the petitioner's behavior did not warrant denial of pre-arrest bail, especially since an accused is not expected to make self-incriminating statements under threat. The Court also noted that the non-recovery of any amount from the petitioner could not be a ground for denying bail. The Court found that pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner was not required. Consequently, the order dated 20.01.2025, granting interim bail, was made absolute, subject to the petitioner abiding by the conditions envisaged under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023, and joining the investigation as and when required. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating/Arresting Officer within one week or as and when subsequently required, and in the event of his arrest, he would be released on ad-interim bail subject to his satisfaction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of obstruction and assault during a GST inspection? The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated and that his shop was searched on 18.12.2024, with no adverse findings, but he was coerced into depositing Rs. 30,000/-. He contended that his presence at the scene was coincidental and that CCTV footage would corroborate his version. He asserted that custodial interrogation is not required and no recovery is to be effected from him. The State, through the learned State counsel, argued that the petitioner did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer, did not join the investigation, and failed to get the Panchnama recovered. It was submitted that custodial interrogation is required for a thorough investigation and that the petitioner's behavior constituted non-cooperation, justifying the denial of pre-arrest bail. The State also noted that the petitioner did not make self-incriminating statements under threat.