Randeep Singh And Anr vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners, Randeep Singh and another, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0177 dated August 9, 2024, registered under Sections 465, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station City Sangrur. The allegations are that the petitioners forged and fabricated bills to exaggerate an offence, leading to the registration of FIR No. 10 dated August 31, 2023, under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, where the complainant in the present FIR was an accused. Investigations revealed that a firm, Bharat Enterprises, purportedly issuing the bills, did not exist in Sangrur, and its GST number was cancelled in 2019. The forged bills were submitted to the investigating officer in the earlier FIR. The petitioners argued that the veracity of the bills was yet to be evaluated by the trial court, the investigation in the earlier FIR was complete, and their custodial interrogation was not warranted as the case relied on documentary evidence. The complainant and the State opposed the bail, highlighting the cancelled GST number and the firm's alleged dealing in hardware, not gold articles, and the petitioners' failure to join an inquiry.

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. It reasoned that the entire investigation was based on documentary evidence, and custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not required. The Court noted that the FIR against the complainant was a counterblast to a case registered by petitioner No. 2 concerning cruelty due to dowry demands. Considering these circumstances, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioners deserved to be released on anticipatory bail. The operative directions included the petitioners joining the investigation within 15 days, being released on interim bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer, and abiding by the conditions specified under Section 482(2) of the BNS. The arrest of the petitioners was stayed until then. The Court also directed that if the petitioners faced hindrance in joining the investigation, they could move an application before the Magistrate, who would then ensure their cooperation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of forgery and fabrication of bills and the pendency of investigation? The petitioners argued that the case was based solely on documentary evidence, the investigation in the prior FIR was complete, and their custodial interrogation was unnecessary. They were ready to join the investigation. The revenue (State of Punjab) and the complainant contended that the GST number on the forged bills was cancelled in 2019, the firm was not dealing in gold articles, and the petitioners had failed to join an inquiry, suggesting a clear case of forgery and fabrication. They argued that the present FIR was a counterblast to the dowry-related FIR filed by petitioner No. 2.