In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 107 CRM-M-64018-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 14.11.2025 Sonu … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (482 of BNSS, 2023), has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.151 dated 22.09.2025, registered under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act, 1914, at Police Station Mallanwala, District Ferozepur, Punjab. 2. The FIR was lodged on the statement of complainant namely ASI Karnail Singh, while acting on a secret information, when the police party was on patrolling duty at Main Chowk, Mallawala, then a special informer informed the complainant about the present petitioner, who is involved in selling liquor illegally and if a raid was conducted, he can be caught along with a large quantity of illegal liquor and Laahn. Thereafter, ruqa was sent to police sation and the FIR was registered and subsequently, 240 litres of Lahan and 60 bottles of illicit liquor have been recovered from the house of the petitioner in his absence. GEETA RANI 2025.12.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-64018-2025 (O&M) ( 2 ) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case due to party faction in the village. The present petitioner was not at home when the alleged recovery was made; the illicit recovery has been planted; and the present FIR was lodged against the pesent petitioner only because of political pressure. It is further contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation, thus, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab, puts in appearance as advance copy of petition had been served to respondent-State. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition by submitting that since 240 litres of Lahan and 60 bottles of illicit liquor have been recovered, as such, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, thus, he prayed for dismissal of anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. 6. Heard. 7. Keeping in view the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, and particulary in view of the fact that there is a recovery of 240 litres of Lahan and 60 bottles of illicit liquor, this Court finds that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation for an effective investigation, and is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, 1997 AIR Supreme Court 3806’ decided on 03.08.1997, as under:- GEETA RANI 2025.12.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-64018-2025 (O&M) ( 3 ) “....custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring would not conduct themselves as offenders.” 9. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the present petition stands dismissed. 10. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 14.11.2025 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No GEETA RANI 2025.12.08 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh