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