Kavita Alias Sonia vs State Of Punjab

Sumeett Goel, J

Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSSS, 2023 in FIR No.374 dated 05.08.2025 registered for offences punishable under Secctions 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNNS, 2023 at Police Station Zirakpur, SAS Naggar, Mohali, Punjab.

The gravamen of the FIR reflects that on 16.07.2025, the complainaant namely Veerpal Kaur, wife of Gurjit Singh, residents of AKS Home Weelfare Society, Zirakpur, alleged that she went to her parental home in village Bebal Khurd, District Faridkoot, due to death of her father and returned on 27.07.2025. The next day i.e. 28.07.2025, around 03:00 PM, while the husband of the complainant was away at the bank for work and the complainant was alone at home. At that time, her neighbours namely Piya Singh and Sonia Singh (petitioner heerein), started shouting and abusiing the complainant in filthy language. Whhen the complainant came outside, both of thhe aforesaid accused threatened to kill her if she did not vacate the house. The aforesaid accused also issueed threats that they would call the goons to beat the complainant and her hussband. When the complainant tried to stop them, accused Piya Singh brought a stick from his house and hit her. The compplainant tried to protect herself with her left arm but the stick hit her arm, then her left leg, and finally her back. The complainant fell down after whicch accused Piya Singh grabbed her by the hair and accused Sonia Singh (peetitioner herein) kicked her in thhe stomach. Accused Sonia Sinngh also triedd to strangulate the complainant while accused Piya Sinngh continued to drag the complainant by the hair. When the complainant raissed the alarm and some of the neighbours gathered on the spot, the accused ran away. Thhereafter, the complainant became unconscious and was admitted to the Civvil Hospital, Dhakoli by her hussband for treatment. Based on this set of alleegations, the instant FIR came to be registered and investigation ensued.

Learned counsel for the pettitioner has iterated that the present FIR is a gross abuse of the process of laaw and has been lodged with mala fide intenttion only to harass the petitioner and her sister, namely Piya Singh. Learned counsel has further iterated thaat prior to the registration of the present FIR, the sister of the petitioner, naamely Piya Singh, had already filed multiple complaints before the conncerned authorities against the complainaant and her husband alleging theeir involvement in illegal activitties being carried out from their residential fllat, which is adjacent to that of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, despite repeated written complaintts by the petitioner, no action was taken by the Police. Instead a false and fabricated FIR was registered after an unexplained delay of 09 days only to shield the complainant and falsely implicated the petitioner and her sister. It has been further submittedd that the petitioner suffers from psychiatriic illness and has been under treaatment as evidenced by the medical documentts annexed as Annexure P-2 andd P-3. Learned counsel has further iterated thhat the allegations against the petitioner are vague, baseless and appear to be motivated by malice. Learned counsel has further submitted that despiite there being no direct or indireect involvement of the petitionerr in the alleged occurrence, he has been ropedd into the present case without any credible evidence. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner as nothing incriminating remains to be recovered from her. Moreover, there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or tampering with the prosecutioon evidence in case she is enlargged on pre-arrest bail. On strength of these submissions, the grant of anticipaatory bail is entreated for.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing that the allegatioons against thhe petitioner are serious in naature. Learned State counsel has iterated that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. Furthermoore, the prosecution version stands duly corroborated by the medical records of the complainant-injjured. Considering the nature of allegationns, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to recover the weapon of offence and to verify the authenticity of digiital evidence. It has further been emphasized that releasing the petitioners on bail at this crucial stage may hamper the ongoing investigation and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing of witnessses. Accordinggly, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the instant petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vociferously opposed the grant of anticcipatory bail to the petitioner by arguing thhat when the complainant was allone at home, the petitioner and her sister nammely Piya Singh abused, threatened and assaulted her with a stick and caused multiple injuries. It has beeen submitted that thereafter, the complainaant was immediately admitted to the Civil Hospital, Dhakoli, and her Mediico-Legal Report duly corroborates the alleged assault and the nature of injuries sustained. Learned counsel has further submitted that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would seriously prejudice the investigattion and embolden the accused persons. Thus, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.

I have heard the learned couunsel for the rival parties and haave gone through the available record of the case.

It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arrun Kumar C.K. and another, 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 977, relevant whereof reads as under:

“12. In a case containing succh serious allegations, the High Coourt ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves freehand to take the investigation to its logical connclusion. It goes without saying that appearance before the Investigaating Officer who, has been prevennted from subjecting Respondent No.1 to custodial interrogation, can harrdly be fruitful to find out the prima facie substance in the allegations, whhich are of extreme serious in nature.

xxx                                                             xxx                                                                                  xxx                                                                        xxx

In many anticipatory baill matters, we have noticed one commmon argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is requiired and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law thatt if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good groundd to grant anticipatory bail. Custodiall interrogation can be one of the relevvant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in whhich the custodial interrogation of thee accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima faacie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he shhould be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is thhe prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishmennt. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custoddial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.”

As per the case put forth in the FIR, indubitably, serioous allegationns have been levelled against the petitioner. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint submitted by the complainant, who alleged that while she was alone at home, she was physically assaulted by the petitioner and her sister, namely Piya Singh, with a stick. During the allegged occurrencce, the complainant is stated too have sustained as many as five injuries, one of which is grievous in naturre, and was hospitalized on account of the same. After perusing the materiaal on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and specific. The FIR discloses a prima facie case involving physical assault and criminal intimidation. The injuries sustained by the complainant staand medically corroborated, and her statement finds support from independent particularly when the investigation is at a nascent stage and crucial evidence is yet to be collected.

8.1. The nomination of the petitiooner is not based on mere suspicion but is supported by corroborative medical evidence and eyewitness testimony. The contention regarding thee delay in registration of the FIR does not, in itself, weaken the prosecuttion’s case, particularly given the hospitalization of the complainant for serious injuries. The nature of the injuries reeflects the severity of the allegeed act. The weapon allegedly ussed by the petitioner has not yet been recovered, and the investigating agenncy has sought the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for effective recovery, verification of facts, and for establishing any broader conspiracy, if any, beehind the occurrence. No plausible cause has been shown at this stage from which it can be inferred that the petitioner has been falsely implicatedd. It goes without saying that the complainant has categoricaally stated that she was attacked in a brutal grooup assault with a deadly weapon.

Furthermore, from the material placed on record that the role attributed to the present petitioner is distiinct and graver than that of the co-accused namely Piya Singh. The co-acccused has already been arrested subjected to custodial interrogation and subsequently granted regular bail after due investigation. The case of the present petitioner, however, stannds on an entirely different footing, as she haas yet to join investigation and her custodial interrogation is required for ascertaining the complete sequence of events, thhe recovery of the weapon of offence, and verification of the allegationns relating to the snatching of the gold chain at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the allegations levvelled against the present petitioner are seriouus and specific in nature, invvolving not only physical assaault resulting in grievous hurt but also criminaal intimidation and theft.

It is befitting to mention herre that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court has to equilibrate between safeguardiing individual rights and protecting societal interest(s). The Court ought to reckon with the magnitude and nature off the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the need for fair and free innvestigation as also the deeper and wide impact of such alleged iniquities on the society. At this stage, theree is no materiial on record to hold that prima facie case is not made out agaiinst the petitioner. The material which has come on record and preliminary investigattion, appear to be established a reasonable basis for the accusationns. Thus, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigattion. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (CCri) 1039, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 189, para 6)

“6. We find force in the submission of CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-orieented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterrring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogaation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument thaat the custodial interrogation is frauught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, suuch an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsiible police officers would conduct thhemselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the taask of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

In view of the nature as alsoo seriousness of allegations, it may not be possible for the investigating agency to unravel the entire truth if the petitioner is armed with a protective order. Moreover, it is the specific staand of the State that the custodial interroogation is necessary to take the investigattion to its logical end and to conclude fair and meaninggful investigattion.

In view of the above, thee instant petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

Nothing said hereinabove shhall be deemed to be an expression of opinionn upon merits of the case/investigation.

Pending application(s), if anyy, shall also stand disposed off.