Tanvi Narula vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the applicant had joined the investigation and that the police's contention of non-cooperation was not substantiated. It distinguished between an accused refusing to confess and actual non-cooperation, citing the Supreme Court in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah. The Court also observed that the status reports were silent on the necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant. Furthermore, the Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others, stating that a person seeking protection under Section 438 Cr.PC (equivalent to Section 482 BNSS) is deemed to have surrendered if a discovery is to be made. Considering that the investigation was to be made from another individual who had allegedly obtained the factory on lease, the Court found no basis for custodial interrogation of the applicant. Consequently, the interim order granting anticipatory bail was made absolute, subject to certain conditions.

Facts

The applicant, Tanvi Narula, filed an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail 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 HP 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 and bottling of liquor, discrepancies in stock, and illegal storage of labels and caps. The applicant claimed innocence, stated she was the sole breadwinner, and that investigation was complete with no recovery needed. The police report indicated that the Excise Department had joined the investigation, and certain documents and vehicles were seized. The State argued the applicant was not cooperating and was the main culprit, requiring further inquiry.

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 non-cooperation with the investigation? (Section 482 BNSS, Sections 39(1)(i) and 39(2)(i) HP Excise Act). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contended that she is innocent, falsely implicated, and there is no direct or indirect evidence connecting her to the crime. She asserted she is from a respectable family, has deep roots in society, and is the sole breadwinner. She also argued that investigation is complete and nothing incriminating needs to be recovered from her. Furthermore, she submitted that non-cooperation with the investigation is distinct from refusing to confess guilt, citing Supreme Court judgments. Respondent's Arguments: The State argued that the applicant is the main culprit and requires further inquiry, thus opposing the grant of anticipatory bail. They also raised concerns about her cooperation with the investigation.