JUDGMENT :

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.22 dated 02.04.2025 registered under Sections 305 and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Qila Lal Singh, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. Brief facts as per the prosecution case are that some unknown persons had broke open the shutter of complainant’s shop and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments, along with cash amounting to Rs.1,20,000/-. Hence, the present FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and initially the FIR was registered against unknown persons. He argued that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor has any concern with the alleged crime. It has also been contended that during investigation, co-accused Kamal Masih was arrested and the petitioner has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the said co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence in question and it is a trite law that disclosure statement of the co-accused during his custodial interrogation has no evidentiary value. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the investigating agency.

4. After registration of the FIR, investigation has been initiated and is under way. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 04.12.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel while referring to the short reply has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. She argued that the petitioner was specifically named in the disclosure statement of co-accused Kamal Masih. She further argued that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused had stolen the gold and silver ornaments along with cash amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and as such, he has played an active role in the crime. She further argued that the petitioner along with co-accused has also stolen the CCTV cameras as well as DVR from the shop. She submits that the petitioner is involved in three more cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender. She further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for fair and proper investigation in the matter and to recover the stolen ornaments and cash. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case, there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he had committed theft of gold and silver ornaments along with cash amount of Rs.1,20,000/- by breaking open the shutter of the complainant’s shop. He is specifically nominated as an accused in the disclosure statement made by co-accused Kamal Masih, as such, his custodial interrogation is required to uncover the modus operandi and to recover the stolen articles. While considering a plea for anticipatory bail, this Court is required to consider the overall nature of offence and accusation against the accused, the manner of occurrence, the gravity of offence and the potential impact of granting pre-arrest protection, at this stage. Granting anticipatory bail with such allegations, at this preliminary stage, would not be justified as it may affect the course of fair investigation and undermine the seriousness of the alleged act. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation in the matter.

8. It is befitting to mention here that while considering a plea for grant of anticipatory bail,