CRM-M-26888 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT KHOKHAN HAWALDAR STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Argued by SURYA P petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 11.02.2026 318(2), 351, 61(2) [Se 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM DATE OF DECISION KHOKHAN HAWALDAR VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Argued by : Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate and Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.S. Riar, Advocate and Mr. Varun Tuteja, Advocate for the complainant. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition for pre-arrest bail is petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 11.02.2026, for the commission of of 318(2), 351, 61(2) [Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2) added later on] of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26888-2026 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 15.05.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Advocate with Mr. Arjun Dhingra, Advocate and Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for the petitioner. with Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Tuteja, Advocate for the complainant. arrest bail is the first petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No.39 dated , for the commission of offence punishable under Section ctions 336(3), 338, 340(2) added later on] of Bharatiya .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, dated fence punishable under Sections Bharatiya GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26888 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Division No.6, Police Commissionerate District Ludhiana. 2. moved by ‘Prabhjot Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as only. In the abovementioned complaint, which has formed the basis of FIR, it has been manufacturing cy that various registrations including sales tax, VAT, GST and trademark registrations stand in favour complainant, herein), ‘Papiya Howladar’ associated with ‘G.K.S. Rickshaw Pvt. Ltd. name/trademark “G.K.” related records in the name of firm of complainant, i.e. ‘M/s G.K. Traders’ The complainant applied for registration of complainant’s trademark in their own the strength of false documents and therefore, caused wrongful loss to the complainant, which culminated into wrongful gain to the accused. 3. claimed that on complainant at Ludhiana and threatened by the complainant against the accused stop opposing the abovementioned illegal business activities of the accused. 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 103 & 104 of Trademarks Act Division No.6, Police Commissionerate District Ludhiana. The abovementioned FIR has come into being moved by ‘Prabhjot Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as In the abovementioned complaint, which has formed the basis of FIR, it has been alleged that ‘M/s G.K. Traders’ has been carrying on business of manufacturing cycle/rickshaw and its spare parts since the year 1961, and various registrations including sales tax, VAT, GST and trademark registrations stand in favour of the firm of the complainant complainant, the accused, namely ‘Khokhan Hawildar’ , ‘Papiya Howladar’, ‘Parthajit Dasgupta’ and ‘Sandip Ghosh’ associated with the companies, namely ‘M/s G.K. Rickshaw ‘G.K.S. Rickshaw Pvt. Ltd.’, and that they dishonestly name/trademark “G.K.” and fabricated related records in the name of firm of complainant, i.e. ‘M/s G.K. Traders’ The complainant has further alleged that the above applied for registration of complainant’s trademark in their own the strength of false documents and therefore, caused wrongful loss to the complainant, which culminated into wrongful gain to the accused. In the abovementioned complaint, the complainant that on 27.02.2025, few of the acc complainant at Ludhiana and threatened him by the complainant against the accused, and pressurize stop opposing the abovementioned illegal business activities of the accused. 2 Sections 103 & 104 of Trademarks Act, Police Station Division No.6, Police Commissionerate District Ludhiana. has come into being on a complaint moved by ‘Prabhjot Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ In the abovementioned complaint, which has formed the basis of FIR, that ‘M/s G.K. Traders’ has been carrying on business of spare parts since the year 1961, and various registrations including sales tax, VAT, GST and trademark of the firm of the complainant. According to the accused, namely ‘Khokhan Hawildar’ (the petitioner , ‘Parthajit Dasgupta’ and ‘Sandip Ghosh’ were companies, namely ‘M/s G.K. Rickshaw Ltd.’ and , and that they dishonestly started using the trade and fabricated documents, brochures and GST related records in the name of firm of complainant, i.e. ‘M/s G.K. Traders’ further alleged that the above-named accused even applied for registration of complainant’s trademark in their own favour on the strength of false documents and therefore, caused wrongful loss to the complainant, which culminated into wrongful gain to the accused. In the abovementioned complaint, the complainant has also , few of the accused visited the office him to withdraw pending cases filed and pressurized the complainant to stop opposing the abovementioned illegal business activities of the accused. , Police Station on a complaint ‘complainant’ In the abovementioned complaint, which has formed the basis of FIR, that ‘M/s G.K. Traders’ has been carrying on business of spare parts since the year 1961, and various registrations including sales tax, VAT, GST and trademark . According to (the petitioner were ’ and started using the trade and GST related records in the name of firm of complainant, i.e. ‘M/s G.K. Traders’. named accused even favour on the strength of false documents and therefore, caused wrongful loss to the has also of to withdraw pending cases filed the complainant to stop opposing the abovementioned illegal business activities of the accused. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26888 The complainant was manhandled 4. regard to abovementioned dispute, even a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner, but despite abovementioned civil suit in favour of complainant, the accused continued to sell e-rickshaw 5. abovementioned investigation taken up. 6. 7. petitioner that allegations in the FIR name/trademark, incorporation, function of certain companies documents before various authorities and commercial rickshaws/spare parts in the brand name ‘G.K.’, despite pendency of civil litigation. As contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the gravamen business dealings alleged to be one of the Directors of ‘M/s G.K. Rickshaw Ltd.’ whom the civil 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 e complainant has also stated that on the abovementioned occasion, he manhandled also, by the accused. In addition to above, the complainant regard to abovementioned dispute, even a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner, but despite a restrained order abovementioned civil suit in favour of complainant, the accused continued to rickshaws and spare parts through dealers and social media platforms. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to abovementioned complaint, formal FIR of this case investigation taken up. Heard. It has been contended by learned petitioner that contents of the abovementioned allegations in the FIR, against the petitioner name/trademark, incorporation, function of certain companies documents before various authorities and commercial rickshaws/spare parts in the brand name ‘G.K.’, despite pendency of civil litigation. As contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the gravamen of the dispute, as narrated in the business dealings and corporate entities, and that the present petitioner alleged to be one of the Directors of ‘M/s G.K. Rickshaw Ltd.’ whom the civil suit has been filed by the complainant. 3 that on the abovementioned occasion, he In addition to above, the complainant has alleged that with regard to abovementioned dispute, even a civil suit has been filed by the restrained order, passed by the Court in the abovementioned civil suit in favour of complainant, the accused continued to s and spare parts through dealers and social media platforms. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to formal FIR of this case has been lodged and the by learned Senior Counsel for the the abovementioned FIR go to show that main against the petitioner, are with regard to use of trade name/trademark, incorporation, function of certain companies, filing o documents before various authorities and commercial sale of e rickshaws/spare parts in the brand name ‘G.K.’, despite pendency of civil litigation. As contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the , as narrated in the FIR itself, is with regard to , and that the present petitioner alleged to be one of the Directors of ‘M/s G.K. Rickshaw Ltd.’, against suit has been filed by the complainant. that on the abovementioned occasion, he alleged that with regard to abovementioned dispute, even a civil suit has been filed by the , passed by the Court in the abovementioned civil suit in favour of complainant, the accused continued to s and spare parts through dealers and social media platforms. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to lodged and the ounsel for the that main are with regard to use of trade filing of sale of e- rickshaws/spare parts in the brand name ‘G.K.’, despite pendency of civil litigation. As contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the FIR itself, is with regard to , and that the present petitioner is , against GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26888 8. registration of as ‘M/s G.K. Traders & Anr. V/s M/s G.K. Rickshaw Ltd. & Ors.’, has already been instituted in the commercial Court, Ludhiana, whic demonstrates that the dispute between the complainant and the present petitioner is primarily a dispute of civil nature. 9. contended that essentially a dispute of civil nature intimidation the core of dispute between the parties can be adjudicated Court only. FIR in question learned Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana for the concession of pre bail, but by virtue of application bearing No.BA/3113/2026 Judge Ludhiana Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions untenable the law. 10. petitioner Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata’ 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, before registration of instant FIR, a commercial suit as ‘M/s G.K. Traders & Anr. V/s M/s G.K. Rickshaw Ltd. & Ors.’, has already been instituted in the commercial Court, Ludhiana, whic demonstrates that the dispute between the complainant and the present petitioner is primarily a dispute of civil nature. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the backdrop of abovementioned dispute, which is entially a dispute of civil nature, by intimidation and forging of documents, a false FIR has been lodged, whereas the core of dispute between the parties can be adjudicated Court only. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner FIR in question has been lodged, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana for the concession of pre bail, but by virtue of order dated 18.04.2026 application bearing No.BA/3113/2026, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana dismissed the abovementioned application. Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned order, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana, is illegal, arbitrary and untenable, as the same is outcome of improper appreciation of fact as well as It has also been contended by petitioner that on 09.05.2026, when the petitioner had gone Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata’ 4 rned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, before commercial suit, bearing No.CS/14/2025, titled as ‘M/s G.K. Traders & Anr. V/s M/s G.K. Rickshaw Ltd. & Ors.’, has already been instituted in the commercial Court, Ludhiana, whic demonstrates that the dispute between the complainant and the present petitioner is primarily a dispute of civil nature. learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further in the backdrop of abovementioned dispute, which is by concocting a story with regard to , a false FIR has been lodged, whereas the core of dispute between the parties can be adjudicated upon by a civil Senior Counsel for the petitioner, once the lodged, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana for the concession of pre-arrest order dated 18.04.2026, passed in a pre-arrest bail , the learned Additional Sessions dismissed the abovementioned application. As per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned order, passed by the Judge Ludhiana, is illegal, arbitrary and outcome of improper appreciation of fact as well as It has also been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the that on 09.05.2026, when the petitioner had gone to ‘Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata’, in the wake rned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, before bearing No.CS/14/2025, titled as ‘M/s G.K. Traders & Anr. V/s M/s G.K. Rickshaw Ltd. & Ors.’, has already been instituted in the commercial Court, Ludhiana, which demonstrates that the dispute between the complainant and the present has further in the backdrop of abovementioned dispute, which is a story with regard to , a false FIR has been lodged, whereas civil once the lodged, the petitioner approached the Court of arrest arrest bail , the learned Additional Sessions As per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned order, passed by the Judge Ludhiana, is illegal, arbitrary and outcome of improper appreciation of fact as well as learned Senior Counsel for the to ‘Netaji of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26888 ‘Look-Out Circular Airport and thereafter, produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, before whom the petitioner was produced extended the benefit of interim/transit itself, with a direction to appear before the learned trial Court at Ludhiana by 12.05.2026 meantime, the present petition for pre 11. contended that once at the time of filing was not in custody, the petition for pre of his abovementioned arguments, petitioner has referred to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘ 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 112 12. for the complainant thrust of arguments of upon the plea taken into custody, and at the time of interim/transit bail given to the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court by 12.05.2026, the present petition for pre learned Senior Counsel f 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 Out Circular’ (LOC), he was apprehended by police officials on the Airport and thereafter, produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, before whom the petitioner was produced extended the benefit of interim/transit bail to the itself, with a direction to appear before the learned trial Court at Ludhiana by 026. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the meantime, the present petition for pre-arrest bail has been filed. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that once at the time of filing was not in custody, the petition for pre-arrest bail is maintainable. In support of his abovementioned arguments, the learned Se petitioner has referred to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Priya Indoria V/s State of Karnataka & Ors.’ RCR (Criminal) 112. The learned State Counsel, for the complainant, have controverted the abovementioned arguments. arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the complainant upon the plea that once in view of Look taken into custody, and at the time of interim/transit bail given to the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court by 12.05.2026, the present petition for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. According to learned Senior Counsel for the complainant 5 , he was apprehended by police officials on the Airport and thereafter, produced before the Court of learned Additional , North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, before whom the petitioner was produced bail to the petitioner on 09.05.2026 itself, with a direction to appear before the learned trial Court at Ludhiana by According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the arrest bail has been filed. ned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that once at the time of filing of present petition, the petitioner arrest bail is maintainable. In support the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Priya Indoria V/s State of Karnataka & Ors.’ as well as learned Senior Counsel controverted the abovementioned arguments. The learned Senior Counsel for the complainant has been that once in view of Look-Out Circular, the petitioner was taken into custody, and at the time of interim/transit bail, a direction was given to the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court by 12.05.2026, arrest bail is not maintainable. According to or the complainant, once the petitioner has been , he was apprehended by police officials on the Airport and thereafter, produced before the Court of learned Additional , North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. As per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, before whom the petitioner was produced, ioner on 09.05.2026 itself, with a direction to appear before the learned trial Court at Ludhiana by According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the ned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further of present petition, the petitioner arrest bail is maintainable. In support nior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Priya Indoria V/s State of Karnataka & Ors.’ as well as learned Senior Counsel The has been Out Circular, the petitioner was , a direction was given to the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court by 12.05.2026, arrest bail is not maintainable. According to , once the petitioner has been GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26888 arrested and released on interim/transit bail, and therefore, in view of Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘ Mulchandani & Anr.’ AIR 2024 SC 4983 not maintainable 13. complainant High Court in the case of ‘ Anr.’ 2025(5) GauLR 490 Ernakulam Bail Application No.13662 of 2025 recorded in the abovementioned Senior Counsel for the complainant that the present petition for pre bail is not maintaina 14. 15. question, which needs to be present petition With regard to above, it is relevant to mention that in the present case, there is no dispute qua the following facts: 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 arrested and released on interim/transit bail, and therefore, in view of principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘ Mulchandani & Anr.’ AIR 2024 SC 4983 not maintainable. In addition to above, the learned Senior Counsel for the complainant has also referred to the observations recorded by the Gauhati High Court in the case of ‘Kamal Sabharwal V/s The State of Assam & 2025(5) GauLR 490 and also by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of ‘Pankaj Kumar V/s Station House Offi Bail Application No.13662 of 2025. While referring to the observations recorded in the abovementioned judgments, it has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the complainant that the present petition for pre is not maintainable and deserves dismissal. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that question, which needs to be determined, before adverting to the merits of the petition for pre-arrest bail, is the maintainability of present petition. With regard to above, it is relevant to mention that in the present case, there no dispute qua the following facts: i. that the FIR No.39 dated 11.02.2026 for offence punishable under Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2) added later on] of BNS and 6 arrested and released on interim/transit bail, he is presumed to be in custody principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Dhanraj Aswani V/s Amar S. Mulchandani & Anr.’ AIR 2024 SC 4983, the petition for pre-arrest bail is In addition to above, the learned Senior Counsel for the has also referred to the observations recorded by the Gauhati Kamal Sabharwal V/s The State of Assam & and also by the High Court of Kerala at in the case of ‘Pankaj Kumar V/s Station House Officer & Anr.’ . While referring to the observations judgments, it has been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the complainant that the present petition for pre-arrest ble and deserves dismissal. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, the primary determined, before adverting to the merits of the arrest bail, is the maintainability of present petition. With regard to above, it is relevant to mention that in the present case, there 11.02.2026 for the commission of Sections 318(2), 351, 61(2) [Sections 336(3), 338, 340(2) added later on] of BNS and Sections 103 & he is presumed to be in custody principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble mar S. arrest bail is In addition to above, the learned Senior Counsel for the has also referred to the observations recorded by the Gauhati Kamal Sabharwal V/s The State of Assam & and also by the High Court of Kerala at cer & Anr.’ . While referring to the observations, judgments, it has been contended by learned arrest in the present case, the primary determined, before adverting to the merits of the arrest bail, is the maintainability of present petition. With regard to above, it is relevant to mention that in the present case, there the commission of 318(2), 351, 61(2) [Sections Sections 103 & GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26888 vii. viii. ix. 16. dispute in the present case, 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 104 of Trademarks Act, has been lodged at the instance of complainant-Prabhjot Singh; ii. that the petitioner has been abovementioned FIR; iii. that the application filed by the petitioner for pre the Court of Sessions at Ludhiana learned Additional Sessions Judge 18.04.2026; iv. that a ‘Look-Out Circular’ was issued against the petitioner; v. that in view of abovementioned 09.05.2026 the petitioner was apprehended at ‘Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata’ vi. that on the same day, i.e. on produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, West Bengal vii. that on 09.05.2026, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore accorded the benefit of interim/transit bail to the petitioner; viii. that while affording the abovementioned benefit to the petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore directed the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court at Ludhiana within three days, i.e. by 12.05.2026; and ix. that on 11.05.2026, the present In the backdrop of abovementioned facts, in the present case, now it has to be determined 7 , has been lodged at the instance of Prabhjot Singh; the petitioner has been named as an accused in the the application filed by the petitioner for pre-arrest bail in at Ludhiana, has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana, vide order dated was issued against the petitioner; in view of abovementioned ‘Look-Out Circular’ was apprehended at ‘Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata’; on 09.05.2026, the petitioner was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial , West Bengal; on 09.05.2026, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore accorded the benefit of interim/transit while affording the abovementioned benefit to the the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, directed the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court at Ludhiana within three days, i.e. by 12.05.2026; 11.05.2026, the present petition has been filed. In the backdrop of abovementioned facts, which are not in now it has to be determined as to whether on , has been lodged at the instance of n the arrest bail in has been dismissed by the Ludhiana, vide order dated on was apprehended at ‘Netaji Subhash he petitioner was produced before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial on 09.05.2026, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore accorded the benefit of interim/transit while affording the abovementioned benefit to the the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, directed the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court at Ludhiana within three days, i.e. by 12.05.2026; which are not in as to whether on GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26888 11.05.2026, when the petitioner was on pre-arrest bail is maintainable or not. 17. Supreme Court of India In the abovementioned observed that with an offence he is arrested, the only remedy available either under Section 437 or Section 439 of CrPC 18. India has also observed that under Section 438 of CrPC, the pre for a person applying for pre be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non As per Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the only pre exercising the said right is the apprehension of the accused that he is likely to be arrested. 19. the case of ‘Kamal Sabhar arrested and produced arrest bail transit bail has been accorded to him. 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 11.05.2026, when the petitioner was on interim/transit bail, the petition arrest bail is maintainable or not. With regard to above, the observations recorded by the Hon’ble reme Court of India in the case of ‘Dhanraj Aswani’ (supra) In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that ‘an accused is entitled to seek pre with an offence so long as he is not arrested in relation to that offence. Once he is arrested, the only remedy available either under Section 437 or Section 439 of CrPC In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of ndia has also observed that under Section 438 of CrPC, the pre for a person applying for pre-arrest bail is be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non As per Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the only pre exercising the said right is the apprehension of the accused that he is likely to be arrested. While dealing with similar situation, the case of ‘Kamal Sabharwal’ (supra) has observed that and produced before the Jurisdiction Magistrate arrest bail is no longer available to him, despite the fact that the benefit of transit bail has been accorded to him. 8 interim/transit bail, the petition the observations recorded by the Hon’ble Dhanraj Aswani’ (supra) are relevant case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has to seek pre-arrest bail in connection arrested in relation to that offence. Once he is arrested, the only remedy available to him is to apply for regular bail either under Section 437 or Section 439 of CrPC, as the case may be’. In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of ndia has also observed that under Section 438 of CrPC, the pre-condition arrest bail is the ‘reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence’. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the only pre-condition for exercising the said right is the apprehension of the accused that he is likely similar situation, the Gauhati High Court has observed that once a person is before the Jurisdiction Magistrate, option for pre is no longer available to him, despite the fact that the benefit of interim/transit bail, the petition for the observations recorded by the Hon’ble are relevant. case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has arrest bail in connection arrested in relation to that offence. Once ular bail In the abovementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of condition ‘reason to believe that he may bailable offence’. condition for exercising the said right is the apprehension of the accused that he is likely the Gauhati High Court in once a person is , option for pre- is no longer available to him, despite the fact that the benefit of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26888 20. view, rendered by the Court of Kerala 21. India in the applicable to the factual matrix of the present case, as case, although the importance been highlighted person has already been arrested 22. case, (discussed above abovementioned principles of been arrested on the basis of a irrespective of the fact that the benefit of transit bail him, he is is enjoying the interim/transit bail, in other words, may be defined to be ‘constructive custody and the petitioner has be in constructive custody petition filed by the petitioner for pre 23. for pre-arrest bail hereby dismissed 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 While dealing with identical rendered by the Gauhati High Court Court of Kerala in the case of ‘Pankaj Kumar’ (supra) As far as the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Priya Indoria’ (supra), is concerned, applicable to the factual matrix of the present case, as although the importance of right to personal been highlighted, yet, the same does not has already been arrested. If the facts and circumstances, which erupted in the present discussed above), are taken into consideration, co abovementioned principles of law, it transpires that been arrested on the basis of a valid warrant issued by a competent Court, irrespective of the fact that the benefit of transit bail him, he is deemed to be in custody. In fact, the ing the interim/transit bail, in other words, may be defined to be constructive custody’. Once the warrant of arrest has already been executed the petitioner has already been arrested be in constructive custody. Thus, it is hereby observed that the present petition filed by the petitioner for pre-arrest bail As a sequel to abovementioned observations, once the petition rrest bail in itself has been found to be not maintainable, the same is dismissed, accordingly. 9 ing with identical situation, the abovementioned High Court, has been followed by the High Pankaj Kumar’ (supra). As far as the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of (supra), is concerned, the same is not applicable to the factual matrix of the present case, as in the abovementioned of right to personal liberty of an individual has the same does not deal with a situation, wherein a If the facts and circumstances, which erupted in the present , are taken into consideration, co-jointly with the law, it transpires that once the petitioner has valid warrant issued by a competent Court, irrespective of the fact that the benefit of transit bail has been accorded to in custody. In fact, the status of the petitioner, who ing the interim/transit bail, in other words, may be defined to be warrant of arrest has already been executed already been arrested, as on today, he is supposed to it is hereby observed that the present arrest bail is not maintainable. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, once the petition has been found to be not maintainable, the same is situation, the abovementioned has been followed by the High As far as the law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of the same is not in the abovementioned n individual has wherein a If the facts and circumstances, which erupted in the present with the once the petitioner has valid warrant issued by a competent Court, has been accorded to , who ing the interim/transit bail, in other words, may be defined to be warrant of arrest has already been executed as on today, he is supposed to it is hereby observed that the present As a sequel to abovementioned observations, once the petition has been found to be not maintainable, the same is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-26888 24. hereinabove of the case. 25. hereinabove of the case. 25. application 15.05.2026 Gaurav Thakur 26888-2026 (O&M) 8587 It is, however, clarified that the observations, recorded hereinabove, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. .2026 (SURYA PA Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 10 clarified that the observations, recorded shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending rendered infructuous. SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No clarified that the observations, recorded shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.15 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document