IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101 CRM-M-34026-2025 Decided On: 04.07.2025 SUKHPAL SINGH ....PETITIONER(s)

Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....RESPONDENT(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Vig, Advocate, Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate and Mr. Mukul Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral)

The petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR no.128 dated 26.06.2025, Annexure P-1, registered under Section 353(2) BNS, at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa.

2. The provision of Section 482(1) BNSS, providing for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest is pari materia to Section 438(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (since repealed). It gives concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court and the Court of Session for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. The petitioner is accused of the offences alleged as per the FIR aforementioned, and has straightaway approached this Court for grant of pre- arrest bail without first approaching the Sessions Court at Mansa for the purpose. Therefore, an objection has been taken by learned State counsel to maintainability of this petition.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste, and at present he is President of Municipal Council, Budhlada, Mansa. He has been falsely implicated in the case on a complaint made by MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) from Budhlada constituency belonging to Aam Aadmi Party(AAP), which has formed Government in the State. The MLA has used his influence in getting the FIR registered because he nurses a personal grudge and wants the petitioner to resign from the opposition party/Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) and join AAP. The contents of the FIR also substantiate the fact, as it has been alleged that the petitioner was missing for last about ten-twelve days under a conspiracy and suddenly went to Chandigarh to join BJP. On that occasion, he spoke against the complainant alleging that he had been taking money from petitioner for every work and that is why he went in hiding. This has maligned the complainant’s image. Learned senior counsel has further contended that the police officials are working under influence of the complainant, and have specific directions to arrest the petitioner as soon as he enters district Mansa. The local police have been raiding his house on daily basis. Therefore, it is not possible for him to approach the Sessions Court, Mansa, for grant of pre- arrest bail. On the issue of maintainability, he has placed reliance upon two Full Bench judgments of the Allahabad High Court in Ankit Bharti v. State of UP and another, 2020 SCC Online All 1949, and Onkar Nath Agrawal and others v. State, 1976 SCC Online All 11, a Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Balan v. State of Kerala, 2003(4) RCR(Criminal) 733, and a judgment of this Court passed in CRM-M-36744-2024 titled Daya Rani and others v. State of Punjab.

4. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

5. Section 482 BNSS reads as under:

482. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.- (1) when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

(2) to (4) xxx xxx xxx A perusal of the Section makes it apparent that a person apprehending arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence is entitled to approach either the High Court or the Court of Session seeking pre-arrest bail. There is no explicit fetter on the power of the High Court to entertain pre- arrest bail petiti