Ankit Dhawan vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the State counsel that the petitioner was not required for custodial interrogation. The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner would be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/SHO, subject to compliance with Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner was also directed to join the investigation on May 28, 2020, and cooperate as and when required. The Court explicitly stated that the order would stand automatically withdrawn if the petitioner failed to join the investigation. No specific issue regarding the GST number or the authenticity of the FIR statements was definitively decided, as the outcome hinged on the State's concession.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankit Dhawan, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 129 dated May 2, 2020, registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, under Sections 308, 284, and 336 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that the petitioner was a co-owner of an Ice Factory from which a gas leakage occurred, causing 2-3 residents to become unconscious. The petitioner contended that he was not a co-owner of the Ice Factory and operated a separate business, evidenced by his distinct GST number. He also argued that the statements in the FIR lacked authenticity as the affected residents had not been examined by the investigating agency. The State, through its counsel, conceded that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations in the FIR and his defense. The petitioner argued that he was not a co-owner of the Ice Factory and had a separate business with its own GST registration, thus disputing his involvement in the incident. He further challenged the veracity of the FIR by highlighting the lack of examination of the alleged victims. The State, represented by its counsel, conceded that the petitioner was not required for custodial interrogation, thereby not opposing the grant of anticipatory bail.