IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when serious allegations are involved.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail under Sections 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BNSS’) in FIR No. 120 dated 11.06.2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354, 506 & 509 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (added later on) at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner(s)) is as follows:

“Statement of Sunita Singla wife of Deepak Singla Resident of House No. 629 B, Agar Nagar Ludhiana aged about 63 years, Mobile No. 9876363111. Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address. I am director of Deepak Builder Engineer, India Limited, the office of this firm is situated at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar near Lodhi Club. Our firm often require security guard. Since last 10 years our firm is taking security guards from Som Dutt son of Om Parkash resident of House No. 51 H, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. As the behavour of Som Dutt was not good towards me and our staff from few months, we were not taking security guards from him and have also told him not to come in our firm and office. Because on 25.5.24, Som Dutt by telephonically called me said bad words, abused me and gave threats to kill me that will shoot me. Today on 11.6.24, at about 11:15 a.m, I was present in my office then Som Dutt by quarrelling with our security guard Kulwinder Singh, was having pistol in the dub and by pushing forcibly came in our office. Who at once after coming started abusing our cashier Kulbhushan Kapoor loudly then in the meanwhile I also came out from the cabin of my office and Som Dutt upon seeing me started giving filthy abuses and gave threats to kill me that today will kill you and he also said that I will shoot on your private part due to which my dignity being a women got hurt. In the meanwhile all our staff gathered. After which my manager Ashok Kumar tried to stop Som Dutt then Som Dutt started scuffling with him and gave threats to kill me. After which, Balvir Singh @ Jolly came forward for our defence then Som Dutt also abused and scuffled with him. When the staff by intervening raised alarm then Som Dutt along with his weapon fled away from the spot and while going he said that cameras are installed here therefore I cannot shoot you but outside nothing will be stopping me. The reason behind the grudge is that on the asking of Som Dutt, we had kept one girl in the office, as her work was not good we had removed that girl from the job. Strict action be taken against Som Dutt for doing as such. Have got recorded the statement with you, heard it, it is correct.

Sd/-

Sunita Singla

(in English) attested

Sd/-

Major Singh ASI,

P.S Sadar Ludhiana

Dated 11.06.2024.”

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the very narrative of FIR is completely unpalatable since the petitioner was having very cordial family relations with the complainant and her entire family. From the bare perusal of the FIR, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague in nature. Furthermore, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not trespassed into the office of the complainant on the alleged day of occurrence. Rather, the petitioner has received a telephonic message from the husband of the complainant to visit the office to settle his accounts. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was unaware of the deep rooted conspiracy being hatched by the complainant to settle her grudge against him. Moreover, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the instant FIR. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has two licensed weapons, one of which was deposited by the petitioner himself with the gun dealer and the other was sold way back before the alleged occurrence and as such, petitioner was not in possession