In a petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking anticipatory bail regarding a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth stayed the arrest of the petitioner till the next date of hearing.
After the FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The case arose from a criminal writ petition filed by the complainant against the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Special Cell, SAS Nagar, seeking protection of his life and liberty. The High Court passed an order dated 18-07-2024 directing the State to get the matter investigated by a Senior Gazetted Officer.
In compliance, the DGP, Punjab, directed the investigation to be conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Rupnagar. Upon inquiry, a report was submitted which recommended the registration of the said FIR. During inquiry, it was found that the DSP had been indulging in large scale extortion by arranging filing of false complaints against different persons and compelling them to shell out money under the threat of lodging criminal FIRs against them. The DSP was also found to be indulging in benami transactions and laundering proceeds of the crime.
There were allegedly close relations between the petitioner and the complainant as the complainant used to make false complaints to the SSP, Mohali at the instance of the petitioner. The complainant levelled allegations that the petitioner DSP had obtained his signatures on blank papers and thereafter, used those signed papers to draft complaints against different persons to extort huge amounts of money from them. It was also alleged that the petitioner had got a disputed property executed in the name of the complainant.
The State had assured the Court that the role of the complainant would also be examined to ascertain whether the offences were made out against the petitioner alone or against the complainant or any other person. The Court mentioned that the State was expected to look into this aspect on its own, but till date, no such exercise had been undertaken by the State.
To ascertain the factual and legal position of the case, the Court found it appropriate to defer the proceedings to enable the State to put for the complete position of the case. Thereafter, the Senior Advocate appearing for the complainant questioned as to why such a direction had been issued to the State at the preliminary stage when the complainant had not even been heard. It was also submitted that the said observation reflected complete bias on part of the Court.
The Court refrained from commenting upon the remarks made by the Senior Advocate and left it upon the advocate to examine the remarks, which were not conducive to the proceedings. However, the Court expressed concern while stating that such conduct or remarks are not expected from worthy senior members of the Bar.
The Court stayed the petitioner’s arrest till the next date of hearing and directed the matter to be listed on 07-09-2026.
