Mannu vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Mannu, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 02 dated 09.01.2025, registered under Sections 221, 238, 305 of the BNS at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by Dr. Tarun Bansal, Food Safety Officer, alleging that on 12.02.2022, a raid on a residential building revealed the manufacturing of duplicate Desi Ghee under the brand name Param Anand by Sharma Milk Products. The petitioner, along with Anmol Thapar and Abhishek Thapar, were found present and allegedly involved. A large quantity of duplicate ghee and adulterants were seized, and the premises were sealed. On 28.03.2023, the premises were inspected again, and it was found that the seal had been tampered with and the seized stock stolen. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rural, Ludhiana, initially recommended filing the complaint due to the complainant's non-cooperation, but the Deputy District Attorney (Legal) recommended registering an FIR, citing the Supreme Court's guidelines in Lalita Kumari. The Commissioner of Police then directed the SHO to take necessary action, leading to the registration of the FIR.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found the explanation provided by the petitioner and co-accused for their presence at the premises to be implausible, especially considering they operate separate sweet shops and would not visit together for quality inspection. The Court noted the suspicious nature of the accused not providing proper business details like GST or sales tax numbers, deeming it indicative of a false narrative. The Court also considered the significant delay in FIR registration (from 12.02.2022 to 09.01.2025) and the ongoing concerns surrounding the adulteration and theft of seized articles. Crucially, the Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was imperative to fully explore all aspects of the case and advance the investigation to its logical conclusion. The reasoning for dismissal was based on the unconvincing explanation, suspicious business disclosures, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation into the alleged adulteration and theft.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 02 dated 09.01.2025, registered under Sections 221, 238, 305 of the BNS, considering the allegations of manufacturing duplicate ghee, tampering with seals, and theft of seized articles. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he has no connection with M/s Sharma Milk Products and was merely present at the premises to inspect ghee quality for potential purchase for his sweet shop. He claims innocence and false implication, stating the case is based on presumption. He argues that the investigating agency failed to implicate the building owner or ascertain the owner of Sharma Milk Products. He also points out the delay in FIR registration and the failure of the complainant to appear for investigation. Furthermore, he asserts that no notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. was issued prior to FIR registration. State's Arguments: The State opposes the petition, arguing that the petitioner failed to disclose essential business details like GST and sales tax numbers. They highlight that the premises' seal was broken and articles were stolen, with recovery pending. The State contends that custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the factual position of the case.