Ankit Singh vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the investigation is complete and nothing remains to be inquired from the applicant, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. The Court also considered that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Hamirpur, making it unlikely that he would abscond. Furthermore, the Court observed that co-accused Tanvi Narula and Dinesh Narula have already been released on bail by this Court, establishing a ground for parity. Consequently, the interim order granting protection to the applicant was made absolute, directing his release on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety, and adhering to specific conditions including joining the investigation when called, not leaving India without permission, not influencing witnesses, and attending trial regularly. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the bail application and not on the merits of the case.

Facts

The applicant, Ankit Singh, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in FIR No. 67 of 2025, registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 39(1)(i) and 39(2)(i) of the H.P. Excise Act. The FIR was based on a complaint by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, Sirmour, following a surprise inspection of M/s Tiloksons Brewery and Distillery. The inspection revealed unauthorized manufacturing of liquor, illegal storage of raw materials and labels, and discrepancies in stock. The applicant, an Excise Inspector at the brewery, was arrested on 6.5.2025 after his involvement was found during the investigation. The investigation involved the seizure of vehicles, raw materials, and electronic devices. The applicant contended he was innocent, falsely implicated, and that investigation was complete with nothing to recover from him. He also relied on the bail granted to co-accused Tanvi Narula and Dinesh Narula.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Ankit Singh, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the stage of investigation and his alleged role as an Excise Inspector at the brewery where unauthorized activities were detected? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and that there is no direct or indirect evidence connecting him to the crime. He claimed to be from a respectable family with deep roots in society and that the investigation is complete with nothing incriminating to be recovered from him. He also asserted that he is entitled to bail on the ground of parity, as co-accused Tanvi Narula and Dinesh Narula have already been granted bail by this Court. He further submitted that no useful purpose would be served by dismissing his bail application as nothing remains to be inquired from him. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposed the application, arguing that the applicant was working as an Excise Inspector at the brewery and his involvement was found during the investigation. They requested the dismissal of the application based on the facts presented in the status report.