SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARJASHAN DHILLON @ JASHANPREET SINGH @ JASHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS – Respondent
CRM-M_8391_2026



##PAGE1##

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner’s

father was an elected MLA from Punjab. During the time of floods in the

State of Punjab, his father had made certain statements on news channels

attributing the floods to alleged administrative lapses on the part of the

Government and naming a senior IAS officer. Owing to the said statement

the Government with a vindictive attitude initiated a chain of false and

fabricated criminal proceedings against the petitioner’s father and

registered multiple false FIRs. The petitioner was later nominated in FIR

No. 174 dated 03.09.2025 without any evidence and the petitioner was

MOHIT

2026.05.14 15:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

granted anticipatory bail in the said FIR. However, the petitioner has a

genuine and well founded apprehension that the police officials acting

under political pressure may falsely implicate him in more false cases,

subject him to illegal detention or resort to coercive measures in order to

harass and humiliate him. Hence, he prays that the present petition be

allowed and the petitioner be given at lease 07 days notice before

registration of any FIR against him.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Learned State counsel, who has appeared on advance notice

of the petition, opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the

present petition is nothing but a mere abuse of process of Court. He

further submits that issuing direction to the investigating agency to issue

07 days prior notice to accused only upon his mere apprehension that he

might be arrested would obstruct the statutory powers of investigating

agency. Learned State counsel has argued that no benefit can be extended

to the petitioner and in support of his contentions, he has relied upon

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Padam

Narain Aggarwal and others’, (2008) 13 SCC 305.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, the petitioner is praying for 07 days prior

notice to be issued before effecting any arrest or taking any coercive

action against him, so as to enable him to avail legal remedies. Law is

well settled in this regard and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Union of

India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and others’, (2008) 13 SCC 305; has

MOHIT

2026.05.14 15:07

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

held that no direction giving prior notice to the petitioner/accused before

affecting an arrest can be issued. It has been further held that issuing such

directions would tantamount to obstructing and curtailing the authority of

the investigating agency. Observations in this regard are as follows:-

“63. In the case on hand, the respondents were only

summoned under Section 108 of the Act for recording of their

statements. The High Court was conscious and mindful of

that fact. It, therefore, held that applications for anticipatory

bail, in the circumstances, were pre-mature. They were,

accordingly, disposed of by directing the respondents to

appear before the Custom Authorities. The Court, however,

did not stop there. It stated that even if the Custom

Authorities find any non-bailable offence against the

applicants (respondents herein), they shall not be arrested

"without ten days prior notice to them.

64. In our judgment, on the facts and in the circumstances of

the present case, neither of the above directions can be said

to be legal, valid or in consonance with law. Firstly, the order

passed by the High Court is a blanket one as held by the

Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh and

seeks to grant protection to respondents in respect of any

non-bailable offence. Secondly, it illegally obstructs,

interferes and curtails the authority of Custom Officers from

exercising statutory power of arrest a person said to have

committed a non-bailable offence by imposing a condition of

giving ten days prior notice, a condition not warranted by

law. The order passed by the High Court to the extent of

directions issued to the Custom Authorities is, therefore,

liable to be set as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top