IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No. 107 CRM-M-22228-2026 Decided on : 23.04.2026 Vijay Kumar Sethi ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 is for grant of blanket bail to the petitioner on apprehension of registration of an FIR or to issue 07 days advance notice to petitioner before registration of FIR.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that that the petitioner apprehends arrest on the basis of false and motivated complaints likely to be converted into FIRs by the police. He further contends that there was some civil dispute regarding money with one Neeraj Garg who in connivance with the local police is moving false complaints against the petitioner and is trying to give criminal colour to a civil dispute. Learned counsel contends that the police are hand in glove with the said Neeraj Garg and the DSO (P.B.I.) CAW & C, Sri Muktsar Sahib has sent a notice to the petitioner to join investigation. He further contends that if he goes to the office of DSP, he will be arrested. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner further undertakes to join the investigation and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. He opposes the prayer for grant of blanket bail on the ground that the present petition is nothing but a mere abuse of process of Court. He further submits that granting blanket bail or issuing direction to the investigating agency to issue 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 grant of blanket bail or a seven days prior notice to be issued before effecting any arrest or taking any coercive action, so as to enable him to avail legal remedies. Law is well settled as to whether blanket bail can be granted merely on apprehension of implication in a criminal case. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. versus State of Punjab, 1980 SCC (2) 565; laid down the law pertaining to the prayer for grant of blanket/pre-arrest bail. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“41. Apart from the fact that the very language of the statute compels this construction, there is an important principle involved in the insistence that facts, on the basis of which a direction under Section 438(1) is sought, must be clear and specific, not vague and general. It is only by the observance of that principle that a possible conflict between the right of an individual to his liberty and the right of the police to investigate into crimes reported to them can be avoided. A blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because, regardless of what kind of offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant and when, an order of bail which comprehends allegedly unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if he commits, say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can then become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly