Sunny vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-58010-2026 -1-
(203)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-58010-2026
Date of decision :11.11.2026
SUNNY
. .. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case
FIR No.152 dated 02.09.2026 registered under Sections 303(2) of BNS,
2023 and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (Sections 317(2) & 318(4) of BNS, 2023 added
later on) [erstwhile Sections 379, 411 and 420 of IPC] at Police Station
Lohian, District Jalandhar (Rural).
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of ASI
Kashmir Singh and the same reads as under:-
“ To the Station House Officer, Police Station Lohian, "Jai
Hind". Today I, the ASI, along with ASI Sarabjit Singh No.
562/Jal., S/Ct Harjeet Singh No. 1843/Jal., PHG Kamaljit
Singh 28179, by way of conveyance in a private vehicle,
along with the investigation bag, laptop and printer, for the
purpose of patrolling the area and in connection with
JITESH LAL
2026.11.12 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-58010-2026 -2-
checking of suspicious and bad persons, was going from
town Lohian towards village Giddar Pindi, when the police
party reached near the bus stand of village Giddar Pindi,
then a Desh Sewak (secret informer) came present before
me, the ASI, and gave information that Rinku son of Sukhdev
Singh, resident of Sunder Nagar Plot, Ward No. 02, Kot Ise
Khan, Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga, who, in
his tipper bearing number PB11-CB-7200 make TATA, and
one tipper without number make TATA, which is being
driven by an unknown person, both of them, having stolen
banned coarse sand (kakka reta) from within the Sutlej river
in both the tippers, are coming towards the Toll Plaza; if a
naka bandi is laid just now at Toll Plaza Giddar Pindi, then
they can be apprehended along with their respective tippers
loaded with coarse sand. Because sand is a natural mineral
substance. Due to which royalty is recovered by the
Government. Now the Punjab Government has imposed a
complete ban on the illegal extraction of sand. The act of the
aforesaid Rinku son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Sunder
Nagar Plot, Ward No. 02, Kot Ise Khan, Police Station Kot
Ise Khan, District Moga, and the unknown truck driver, in
stealing banned sand, falls within the purview of the offence
under 303(2) BNS, 21 Mining Minerals Act 1957. Regarding
which, information was given to JE Mining Sh. Aman,
Mining Department, Circle Shahkot, on his phone number
76967-48791. Whereupon, a ruqa (written request) for
registration of a case against Rinku son of Sukhdev Singh,
resident of Sunder Nagar Plot, Ward No. 02, Kot Ise Khan,
Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga, and the
unknown truck driver, having been written, is being sent to
the police station through PHG Kamaljit Singh 28179. The
case be registered and the number of the case be intimated.
Information be given to the Control Room by way of
JITESH LAL
2026.11.12 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-58010-2026 -3-
wireless. I, the ASI, along with fellow employees, am leaving
for the place told by the Desh Sewak (secret informer). Sd/-
”
Kashmir Singh ASI, Police Station Lohian.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, he has
not been named in the FIR. When co-accused Rinku was arrested on
02.09.2026, an application for police remand was moved on 04.09.2026
on the premise that he was to be interrogated regarding the whereabouts
of the other driver of the tipper who had fled away from the spot along
with his tipper. The application for police remand was declined on the
same day i.e. 04.09.2026. Once the application for remand itself was
declined, the disclosure statement of Rinku naming the present petitioner
could not have been recorded and therefore, the name of the petitioner
could not have figured in the disclosure statement of the arrested
accused, namely, Rinku. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the
concession of anticipatory bail.
4. A status report dated 10.11.2026 by way of an affidavit of
Sarwan Singh Bal, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division
Shahkot, Jalandhar (Rural) has been filed on behalf of the State by the
learned counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. While
referring to the said status report, he contends that Rinku was
apprehended on 02.09.2026 itself. He was remanded to police custody
for one day on 03.09.2026, on which date itself he got recorded his
disclosure statement to the effect that the petitioner was the driver of the
JITESH LAL
2026.11.12 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-58010-2026 -4-
second tipper which had been driven away from the spot by the
petitioner. It is by way of routine that an application for remand was
moved on 04.09.2026 stating that Rinku was required to be interrogated
to ascertain the whereabouts of the other accused. The said application
had therefore been dismissed on the same day itself i.e. 04.09.2026. The
petitioner cannot take advantage of the application for remand dated
04.09.2026, which apparently has been moved in routine by the
Investigating Agency, despite the fact that the name of the petitioner was
already disclosed by Rinku on 03.09.2026 itself. In fact, the offence is
prima facie established. Further, the petitioner is a habitual offender with
two other cases of a similar nature registered against him. Hence, the
present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha
Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held
that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself
could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the
foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to
consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract
of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has
already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part
that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent
JITESH LAL
2026.11.12 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-58010-2026 -5-
No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further
investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where
Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation,
we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have
granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this
Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High
Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other
words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly
exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to
the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and,
therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set
aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed
one common argument being canvassed that no custodial
interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail
may be granted. There appears to be a serious
misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that
alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects
to be considered along with other grounds while deciding
an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be
many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the
accused may not be required, but that does not mean that
the prima facie case against the accused should be
ignored or overlooked and he should be granted
anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the
court hearing an anticipatory bail application should
consider is the prima facie case put up against the
accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be
JITESH LAL
2026.11.12 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-58010-2026 -6-
looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to
decline custodial interrogation. However, even if
custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by
itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail .
7. The relevant portion of the State's reply dated 10.11.2026,
reads as under:-
"7. That during the course of investigation, accused Rinku made
a disclosure statement to the effect that his employer, namely
Baljinder Singh son of Angrez Singh, had handed over TATA
Tipper bearing registration No. PB-11-CB-7200 to him for
illegally extracting sand. He further disclosed that upon
reaching Mandla Channa, he met Raju Sarpanch son of
Pritam Singh and Surjit Singh, residents of Moga, who
loaded sand into the aforesaid tipper with the help of a
Poklane machine, for which he paid them an amount of
Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, they handed over to him Slip No.
201 dated 01.09.2026, bearing his name and the
registration number of the tipper, along with the inscription
“Jai Kisan, Jisda Khet Usdi Rait (Sand), Village Mundi
Kasu, Mandala, District Jalandhar” and the name of
Darshan Singh. He further disclosed that another tipper,
owned by Sunny, resident of Ferozepur, had also been
loaded with sand, but its driver fled from the spot upon
seeing the police party. On the basis of the aforesaid
disclosure statement and the investigation conducted
thereafter, Baljinder Singh, Sunny, Raju Sarpanch and Surjit
Singh were nominated as accused in the present FIR.
8. Role of Petitioner: That as per the disclosure statement of
co-accused Rinku, another TATA tipper, allegedly owned by
Sunny, resident of Ferozepur, was also loaded with illegally
extracted sand at Mandla Channa with the help of a
JITESH LAL
2026.11.12 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-58010-2026 -7-
Poklane machine. The driver of the said tipper fled from the
spot upon seeing the police party. Accordingly, Sunny was
nominated as an accused in the present FIR on the basis of
the aforesaid disclosure statement and subsequent
investigation."
8. As per the prosecution case, secret information was received
that two vehicles would be transporting illegally extracted sand and
could be apprehended if a naka was laid at the Toll Plaza, Giddar Pindi.
The FIR was registered and Rinku was arrested in the case along with a
Tata tipper bearing Registration No.PB-11-CB-7200 on 02.09.2026
itself. However, another tipper without any registration number, being
driven by an unknown person was driven away from the spot. Rinku was
subjected to a one-day police remand, wherein he disclosed the name
and the role played by the petitioner. It appears that a routine application
for extension of police remand was moved by the Investigating Agency
on 04.09.2026 on the premise that the name of the driver/owner of the
unnumbered tipper was to be ascertained from Rinku, despite the fact
that Rinku had already got recorded his disclosure statement on
03.09.2026. This application for police remand was dismissed. The
contention of the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been
named in the disclosure statement of Rinku as the application for his
police remand was dismissed on 04.09.2026 cannot be accepted.
9. It may be pertinent to note here that the petitioner is a
habitual offender with two other cases of a similar nature registered
against him, the details of which are as under:
JITESH LAL
2026.11.12 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-58010-2026 -8-
Sr. No. FIR Nos. & Date Sections Police Station
1. FIR No.133 of 379 IPC and Sections
2018 21(3) of Mines and
Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957
P.S. Sadar Zira,
Ferozepur
2. FIR No.130 of 341, 353, 186, 379, 120-B
2023 IPC and Sections 21(3) of
Mines and Minerals
(Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957
P.S. Makhu,
District
Ferozepur
10. As the allegations against the petitioner are grave, the
offence is prima facie established and the investigation is to be taken to
its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
certainly necessary.
11. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the
present petition and the same stands dismissed.
12. However, the observations made hereinabove are only for
the purposes of deciding this bail petition and the Trial Court is free to
adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the evidence led before it
uninfluenced by any such observations made herein.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
11.11.2026
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
JITESH LAL
2026.11.12 16:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document