Dinesh Narula 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 further needs to be inquired from the applicant, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. The Court also considered that the applicant is a permanent resident of the district and not likely to abscond. Furthermore, the Court observed that the co-accused, Tanvi Narula, has already been released on bail, making the applicant eligible for relief on grounds of parity. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be rejected as a form of punishment and that the applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The interim order granting protection was made absolute, subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety, and adherence to specified conditions including joining the investigation when called, not leaving India without permission, not influencing witnesses, and attending trial dates.

Facts

The applicant, Dinesh Narula, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in FIR No. 67 of 2025, registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the H.P. Excise Act. The FIR was based on a complaint by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, following a surprise inspection of M/s Tiloksons Brewery and Distillery. The inspection revealed unauthorized manufacturing of liquor, illegal bottling, and discrepancies in stock. The applicant claimed innocence, stated he was from a respectable family, had deep roots in society, was an old person suffering from ill health, and that investigation was complete with nothing incriminating to be recovered. His previous bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The police report indicated the applicant was the owner of the company and that his daughter, Tanvi Narula, managed the operations due to his ill health. Tanvi Narula had also been released on bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of unauthorized manufacturing and sale of liquor, and the alleged involvement of his daughter in managing the operations, despite his claims of ill health and innocence? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and has no direct or indirect evidence connecting him to the crime. He asserted he is an old man with poor health, requiring frequent medical check-ups, and that the investigation is complete with no recovery pending from him. He also pointed out that his daughter, Tanvi Narula, who allegedly managed the company due to his ill health, has been released on bail, entitling him to relief on grounds of parity. Respondent's arguments: The State contended that the applicant is the owner of the brewery and distillery where unauthorized manufacturing and bottling of liquor were found. The police report highlighted that the applicant's daughter managed the company due to his ill health and that other accused individuals named the daughter as the one bringing raw materials. The State sought dismissal of the application.