CRM-M-42636 CRM-M-46624 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 242+136 1. CRM RANJIT SINGH GILL STATE OF PUNJAB 2. CRM RANJIT SINGH GILL STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. N. K. Verma, Advocate and Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA These two petitions decided together. 2. T direction that in case respondents decide to arrest under Sections 13(1) 1988, registered at Police Station Mohali, or (ii) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS 42636-2025 with 46624-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided On: CRM-M-42636-2025 RANJIT SINGH GILL Versus PUNJAB AND OTHERS CRM-M-46624-2025 RANJIT SINGH GILL AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. N. K. Verma, Advocate and Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) These two petitions are inter-connected and decided together. The first petition,CRM-M-42636 direction that in case the petitioner is nominated respondents decide to arrest him either in - (i) s 13(1) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, (ii) FIR no.02, dated 22.12.2021, under Sections 25, 27A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided On: 22.08.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) ....RESPONDENT(s) ....PETITIONER(s) ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. N. K. Verma, Advocate and Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik, Advocate Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. connected and, therefore, being 42636-2025, has been filed seeking a is nominated as an accused and (i) FIR no.22, dated 25.06.2025, of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Vigilance Bureau, Phase I, SAS Nagar, , under Sections 25, 27A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), therefore, being seeking a and , , Phase I, SAS Nagar, , under Sections 25, 27A, 29 of the , Aman Dua 2025.08.26 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CRM-M-42636 CRM-M-46624 registered at Police Station two weeks’ advance notice may be served accordance with law. 2.1. The second petition, quashing the notice in the aforementioned abuse of the process of law. petition also, and the second one is been issued identical 3. In the first petition, of motion, the respondents/State as also an affidavit 2025, has essentially been filed petition. 3.1. Notice of motion. 3.2. L arguments on petition. 4. Facts are being noticed from the fi claimed that the petitioner and is being maliciously targeted by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, solely account of his political Akali Dal (SAD) Secretary. In July, 2025 thereafter subject 42636-2025 with 46624-2025 -2- registered at Police Station Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar, Mohali advance notice may be served upon him to avail the remed accordance with law. The second petition, CRM-M-46624 quashing the notices dated 04.08.2025, Annexure P the aforementioned case, FIR no.02, dated 22.12.2021, abuse of the process of law. One of the petitioners is petitioner no.1 in the first petition also, and the second one is an accountant identical notices as aforementioned. In the first petition, CRM-M-42636 of motion, the respondents/State have filed a affidavit dated 11.08.2025. The second petition, has essentially been filed on the same Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has accept arguments on the basis of affidavit and status report Facts are being noticed from the fi the petitioner is a social-worker having no criminal ing maliciously targeted by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, solely account of his political affiliation. He has been Akali Dal (SAD), a political party, and held Secretary. In July, 2025, he tendered resignation from thereafter subjected to undue political pressure Crime, SAS Nagar, Mohali, atleast upon him to avail the remedies in 46624-2025, has been filed for , Annexure P-9, issued to the petitioners FIR no.02, dated 22.12.2021, being illegal and an One of the petitioners is petitioner no.1 in the first accountant in his company; both have aforementioned. 42636-2025, after issuance of notice status report dated 17.08.2025, he second petition, CRM-M-46624- facts as mentioned in the first accepted notice, and addressed and status report already filed in the first Facts are being noticed from the first petition, wherein it is having no criminal antecedents, ing maliciously targeted by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, solely on . He has been associated with the Shiromani and held the position of its General he tendered resignation from the SAD, and was to undue political pressure by the Government of Punjab, , atleast in for s an One of the petitioners is petitioner no.1 in the first ; both have after issuance of notice 7.08.2025, - first d in the first st petition, wherein it is antecedents, on romani of its General and was , Aman Dua 2025.08.26 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CRM-M-42636 CRM-M-46624 which has been formed by the petitioner instead opposition party in the State respondents searched Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, on 01.08.025 notice under Section 22.12.2021, asking him to appear (SIT) at Police Line, Patiala on out of political illegal manner witness in the case. 5. As per the affidavit Superintendent of Police petitioner no.1 Majithia, in FIR no.02, dated 22.12.2021, and that a significant amount of illicit funds were invested in Gillco Company owned by the petitioner. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit to this effect read as under: 5. That it is humbly s under section 25/27(A) and 29 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar against Bikram Singh Majithia and during the investigation of the said FIR, it was found that Peregrine Sara company/firm belonging to Bikram Singh Majithia's family was registered at the address i.e. House No.4276, Phase Estate Patiala. The owner of the property at this address was identified as one Tara Singh Warraich S/o 6. That during the course of investigation of the said case, a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. (179 BNSS) was duly issued to above Tara 42636-2025 with 46624-2025 -3- which has been formed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) instead chose to align with the Bharatiya Jan opposition party in the State, on 01.08.2025 respondents searched his premises under search warrants issued by Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, on 01.08.025. Later, he was issued the impugned Section 160 Cr.P.C. in the aforementioned 1, asking him to appear in the office of Spe at Police Line, Patiala on 05.08.2025 at 11:00 AM out of political vengeance, and the respondent illegal manner by calling him before the SIT, witness in the case. As per the affidavit, dated 11.08.2025 Superintendent of Police-cum-Chairman, SIT, it no.1 is a close associate of the main accused, Majithia, in FIR no.02, dated 22.12.2021, and that a significant amount of illicit funds were invested in Gillco Company owned by the petitioner. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit to this effect read as under: 5. That it is humbly submitted that an FIR No.2 dated 20.12.2021 under section 25/27(A) and 29 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar against Bikram Singh Majithia and during the investigation of the said FIR, it was found that Peregrine Saraya Organics Private Limited, a company/firm belonging to Bikram Singh Majithia's family was registered at the address i.e. House No.4276, Phase Estate Patiala. The owner of the property at this address was identified as one Tara Singh Warraich S/o 6. That during the course of investigation of the said case, a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. (179 BNSS) was duly issued to above Tara Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), to join its ranks. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), an 01.08.2025. On the very next day, the his premises under search warrants issued by Additional . Later, he was issued the impugned in the aforementioned FIR no.02, dated the office of Special Investigation Team at 11:00 AM. This has been done , and the respondents are out to arrest him in this though he has only named as a dated 11.08.2025, filed by the Senior Chairman, SIT, it has been mentioned that is a close associate of the main accused, Bikram Singh Majithia, in FIR no.02, dated 22.12.2021, and that a significant amount of his illicit funds were invested in Gillco Company owned by the petitioner. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit to this effect read as under: ubmitted that an FIR No.2 dated 20.12.2021 under section 25/27(A) and 29 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar against Bikram Singh Majithia and during the investigation of the said FIR, it ya Organics Private Limited, a company/firm belonging to Bikram Singh Majithia's family was registered at the address i.e. House No.4276, Phase-2, Urban Estate Patiala. The owner of the property at this address was identified as one Tara Singh Warraich S/o Mehar Singh. 6. That during the course of investigation of the said case, a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. (179 BNSS) was duly issued to above Tara The , an . On the very next day, the Additional . Later, he was issued the impugned FIR no.02, dated cial Investigation Team . This has been done this as only named as a filed by the Senior been mentioned that Bikram Singh his illicit funds were invested in Gillco Company owned by the petitioner. The ubmitted that an FIR No.2 dated 20.12.2021 under section 25/27(A) and 29 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar against Bikram Singh Majithia and during the investigation of the said FIR, it ya Organics Private Limited, a company/firm belonging to Bikram Singh Majithia's family was 2, Urban Estate Patiala. The owner of the property at this address was 6. That during the course of investigation of the said case, a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C. (179 BNSS) was duly issued to above Tara Aman Dua 2025.08.26 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CRM-M-42636 CRM-M-46624 Singh Warraich to appear before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) constituted to investigate the above FIR No.2 20.12.2021 7. That the aforementioned Tara Singh Warraich appeared before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) on dated 17.07.2025. During his questioning regarding Peregrine Saraya Organics Private Limited (a company/firm belonging to Bikram Majithia's family), his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code categorically disclosed that he had previously been an employee of Bikram Singh Majithia's family company, Peregrine Sa Organics Private Limited. He further disclosed that Ranjit Singh Gill (petitioner), owner of Gillco Company, is a close associate of Bikram Singh Majithia, the accused in FIR No.2 supra, and that a significant amount of illicit/ill in the said Gillco Company. 8. That it is further submitted that in light of the above said statement recorded by Tara Singh Warraich, a notice/summon No.366/SIT dated 04.08.2025 u/s 160 Cr.P.C. (179 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023) petitioner Ranjit Singh Gill to appear before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) on dated 05.08.2025. However, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner failed to appear on the specified date. It is further submitted that the petit been named as an accused in FIR No.2 dated 20.12.2021 supra, till date. 5.1. The respondents have also stated in the status report dated 17.08.2025, that search warrants dated 01.08.2025 regarding three properties of petitioner no.1 Nagar, on 01.08.2025, Accordingly, these law. The fact of 42636-2025 with 46624-2025 -4- Singh Warraich to appear before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) constituted to investigate the above FIR No.2 20.12.2021 supra. 7. That the aforementioned Tara Singh Warraich appeared before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) on dated 17.07.2025. During his questioning regarding Peregrine Saraya Organics Private Limited (a company/firm belonging to Bikram Majithia's family), his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). In his statement, he categorically disclosed that he had previously been an employee of Bikram Singh Majithia's family company, Peregrine Sa Organics Private Limited. He further disclosed that Ranjit Singh Gill (petitioner), owner of Gillco Company, is a close associate of Bikram Singh Majithia, the accused in FIR No.2 supra, and that a significant amount of illicit/ill in the said Gillco Company. 8. That it is further submitted that in light of the above said statement recorded by Tara Singh Warraich, a notice/summon No.366/SIT dated 04.08.2025 u/s 160 Cr.P.C. (179 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023) petitioner Ranjit Singh Gill to appear before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) on dated 05.08.2025. However, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner failed to appear on the specified date. It is further submitted that the petit been named as an accused in FIR No.2 dated 20.12.2021 supra, till date. The respondents have also stated in the status report dated that search warrants dated 01.08.2025 regarding three properties of petitioner no.1 were issued by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS on 01.08.2025, and regarding his fourth property on 02.08.2025 these premises were searched on 02.08.2025 fact of petitioner’s joining the BJP has Singh Warraich to appear before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) constituted to investigate the above FIR No.2 dated 7. That the aforementioned Tara Singh Warraich appeared before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) on dated 17.07.2025. During his questioning regarding Peregrine Saraya Organics Private Limited (a company/firm belonging to Bikram Singh Majithia's family), his statement was recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). In his statement, he categorically disclosed that he had previously been an employee of Bikram Singh Majithia's family company, Peregrine Saraya Organics Private Limited. He further disclosed that Ranjit Singh Gill (petitioner), owner of Gillco Company, is a close associate of Bikram Singh Majithia, the accused in FIR No.2 supra, and that a significant amount of illicit/ill-gotten funds were invested 8. That it is further submitted that in light of the above said statement recorded by Tara Singh Warraich, a notice/summon No.366/SIT dated 04.08.2025 u/s 160 Cr.P.C. (179 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023) was issued to the petitioner Ranjit Singh Gill to appear before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) on dated 05.08.2025. However, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner failed to appear on the specified date. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been named as an accused in FIR No.2 dated 20.12.2021 supra, The respondents have also stated in the status report dated that search warrants dated 01.08.2025 regarding three properties were issued by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS fourth property on 02.08.2025. premises were searched on 02.08.2025 in accordance with BJP has nothing to do with the case, Singh Warraich to appear before the Special Investigating Team dated 7. That the aforementioned Tara Singh Warraich appeared before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) on dated 17.07.2025. During his questioning regarding Peregrine Saraya Organics Singh Majithia's family), his statement was recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). In his statement, he categorically disclosed that he had previously been an employee raya Organics Private Limited. He further disclosed that Ranjit Singh Gill (petitioner), owner of Gillco Company, is a close associate of Bikram Singh Majithia, the accused in FIR No.2 supra, and nvested 8. That it is further submitted that in light of the above said statement recorded by Tara Singh Warraich, a notice/summon No.366/SIT dated 04.08.2025 u/s 160 Cr.P.C. (179 Bharatiya was issued to the petitioner Ranjit Singh Gill to appear before the Special Investigating Team (SIT) on dated 05.08.2025. However, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner failed to appear on the ioner has not been named as an accused in FIR No.2 dated 20.12.2021 supra, The respondents have also stated in the status report dated that search warrants dated 01.08.2025 regarding three properties were issued by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS . in accordance with with the case, Aman Dua 2025.08.26 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CRM-M-42636 CRM-M-46624 as the warrants had been issued prior to investigation is being carried out in accordance with law, petitioner is not an accused in either of the FIRs aforementioned material comes to the li action will be taken. 6. In this factual background, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contend no.1 only on account in the cases. They being not an accused, he has been issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to secure his presence and arrest him an accused in the case been adopted under law to protect his liberty. In support of the contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta v. State of West Bengal and another case, notices issued under Sec been nominated as accused, were challenged, and the Court held to be accused of an offence and implicated in the case, they shall not be arrested without issuing a of the judgmen 12. However, the practice, if adopted by investigating agency during investigation to call someone not named in the FIR connected in any way in committing the offence, under complies direction of such name of interrogation, implicate him as an accused and arrest 42636-2025 with 46624-2025 -5- as the warrants had been issued prior to investigation is being carried out in accordance with law, petitioner is not an accused in either of the FIRs aforementioned comes to the light against him during the investigation action will be taken. In this factual background, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents searched the only on account of his joining the opposition party, and in the cases. They want to arrest him at any cost, that is the reason despite an accused, he has been issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to secure his presence and arrest him there without notice by implicating him as in the case. This is an abuse of the process of law and has to prevent the petitioner from availing under law to protect his liberty. In support of the contention, he has relied judgment of the High Court of Calcutta State of West Bengal and another, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1396. In issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners who ha been nominated as accused, were challenged, and the Court held to be accused of an offence and implicated in the case, they shall not be arrested without issuing a prior notice of ten days of the judgment have been referred to: 12. However, the practice, if adopted by investigating agency during investigation to call someone not named in the FIR connected in any way in committing the offence, under section 160 of the Cr.P.C and when the person concerned complies direction of such notice, the investigating officer in the name of interrogation, implicate him as an accused and arrest as the warrants had been issued prior to his joining the party. The investigation is being carried out in accordance with law, and as of now the petitioner is not an accused in either of the FIRs aforementioned. In case any during the investigation, appropriate In this factual background, learned senior counsel for the that the respondents searched the properties of petitioner joining the opposition party, and to implicate him want to arrest him at any cost, that is the reason despite an accused, he has been issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to thout notice by implicating him as . This is an abuse of the process of law and has only prevent the petitioner from availing the remedy available under law to protect his liberty. In support of the contention, he has relied judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Sutapa Adhikari and others , 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1396. In this tion 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners who had not been nominated as accused, were challenged, and the Court held if they were to be accused of an offence and implicated in the case, they shall not be of ten days. The following paragraphs 12. However, the practice, if adopted by investigating agency during investigation to call someone not named in the FIR or not connected in any way in committing the offence, by a notice of the Cr.P.C and when the person concerned notice, the investigating officer in the name of interrogation, implicate him as an accused and arrest joining the party. The as of now the n case any , appropriate In this factual background, learned senior counsel for the of petitioner to implicate him want to arrest him at any cost, that is the reason despite an accused, he has been issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to thout notice by implicating him as only available under law to protect his liberty. In support of the contention, he has relied Sutapa Adhikari and others this not they were to be accused of an offence and implicated in the case, they shall not be paragraphs 12. However, the practice, if adopted by investigating agency or not by a notice of the Cr.P.C and when the person concerned notice, the investigating officer in the name of interrogation, implicate him as an accused and arrest Aman Dua 2025.08.26 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CRM-M-42636 CRM-M-46624 him directly, such adopted by the investigating agency is not in conformity with the provisions and object as and also violative of principles of natural justice. 160 re of offence, cannot be directed to appear through notice under right of such person to get his proper redressal. Even if there is any allegation of violation of notice under The public servant can very well take steps under the Indian Penal Code but the investigation agency cannot use anyone. 13. Thus in order to prevent abuse of the process of law by the investigating agency as already discussed and to ensure ends of justice and having considered the rival contentions, CRR 2464 is hereby 42636-2025 with 46624-2025 -6- him directly, such practice cannot be encouraged adopted by the investigating agency is not in conformity with the provisions and object as laid down in and also violative of principles of natural justice. 160 under chapter XII of the Cr.P.C require attendance of witness and therefore under the garb of section 160 of the Cr.P.C. a offence, cannot be directed to appear through notice under section 160, for adopting short cut method of de right of such person to get his proper redressal. Even if there is any allegation of violation of notice under The public servant can very well take steps under the Indian Penal Code but the investigation agency cannot use section 160 of the Cr.P.C as an oppressive measure against anyone. … 13. Thus in order to prevent abuse of the process of law by the investigating agency as already discussed and to ensure ends of justice and having considered the rival contentions, CRR 2464 is hereby disposed of with the following direction: (i) The investigating agency in connection with Contai Police case no.46 of 2022 dated 31.01.2022 under 120B/409/477A of the Indian Penal Code before the learned ACJM Contain Purba Medinipur (if investigation still continuing) will be free to of notices under section 91/160 if their presence and interview is required for investigation but in that case the petitioners must be given at least 72 (seventy Two) hour notice. (ii) If at any point of time the investigating agency proposes to accuse any of the petitioners of any alleged offence and proposes to implicate with the case in order to start investigation against all or any of the petitioners, the concerned petitioner(s) shall be served with a written show cause notice and he shall not be arrested for a period of 10 practice cannot be encouraged. Such procedure adopted by the investigating agency is not in conformity with the laid down in section 160 of the Cr.P.C. and also violative of principles of natural justice. Section Cr.P.C empowers a police officer to quire attendance of witness and therefore under the garb of the Cr.P.C. a person unconnected with the offence, cannot be directed to appear through notice , for adopting short cut method of denying the right of such person to get his proper redressal. Even if there is any allegation of violation of notice under section 160 of Cr.P.C., The public servant can very well take steps under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code but the investigation agency cannot f the Cr.P.C as an oppressive measure against 13. Thus in order to prevent abuse of the process of law by the investigating agency as already discussed and to ensure ends of justice and having considered the rival contentions, CRR 2464 is disposed of with the following direction:- (i) The investigating agency in connection with Contain Police case no.46 of 2022 dated 31.01.2022 under sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the learned ACJM Contain Purba Medinipur (if investigation still continuing) will be free to issue another set 160 of Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, if their presence and interview is required for investigation the petitioners must be given at least 72 (ii) If at any point of time the investigating agency proposes to accuse any of the petitioners of any alleged offence and implicate with the case in order to start investigation against all or any of the petitioners, the concerned petitioner(s) shall be served with a written show cause notice and he shall not be arrested for a period of 10 . Such procedure adopted by the investigating agency is not in conformity with the of the Cr.P.C. Section empowers a police officer to quire attendance of witness and therefore under the garb person unconnected with the offence, cannot be directed to appear through notice nying the right of such person to get his proper redressal. Even if there is , of the Indian Penal Code but the investigation agency cannot f the Cr.P.C as an oppressive measure against 13. Thus in order to prevent abuse of the process of law by the investigating agency as already discussed and to ensure ends of justice and having considered the rival contentions, CRR 2464 is n sections pending before the learned ACJM Contain Purba Medinipur (if nother set of Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, if their presence and interview is required for investigation the petitioners must be given at least 72 (ii) If at any point of time the investigating agency proposes to accuse any of the petitioners of any alleged offence and implicate with the case in order to start investigation against all or any of the petitioners, the concerned petitioner(s) shall be served with a written show cause notice and he shall not be arrested for a period of 10 Aman Dua 2025.08.26 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CRM-M-42636 CRM-M-46624 7. Per contra not maintainable them under law to the petitioner from arresting offence and their respondents’ power to investigate the cases further contend only to require the petitioners however, did not appear on the said date, thereafter. None of them is an accused so far their arrest has no basis. He has Gopichand Ramchandani LiveLaw (SC) 1010, wherein the Supreme Court given by the High Court to give seventy arrest holding it to be Narain Aggarwal and others 8. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 9. As per undisputed fact nominated as accused in either of the cases aforementioned. 42636-2025 with 46624-2025 -7- days, from service of such show cau to avail of his remedies against arrest available in law. (iii) It is made clear that this court has not entered into the merit of the complain whatsoever herein is confined to future notice, if any, under 160/91 of Cr.P.C. in connection with present petitioners. Per contra, learned State counsel contends that the petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners have not availed the remedy under law to seek pre-arrest bail. Issuing a direction to to the petitioners before arrest, only amounts to restraining the respondents arresting them even if they are accused of their custody is required for investigation. It will be a respondents’ power to investigate the cases further contended that the impugned notices, only to require the petitioners’ presence before the SIT on 05.08.2025 however, did not appear on the said date, and None of them is an accused so far arrest has no basis. He has also relied upon the judgment in Gopichand Ramchandani v. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani and others LiveLaw (SC) 1010, wherein the Supreme Court given by the High Court to give seventy-two hours holding it to be violative of law laid down in Narain Aggarwal and others, (2008) 13 SSC 305 Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been As per undisputed factual position nominated as accused in either of the cases aforementioned. days, from service of such show cause notice to enable him to avail of his remedies against arrest available in law. (iii) It is made clear that this court has not entered into the merit of the complain whatsoever and the observation made herein is confined to future notice, if any, under section of Cr.P.C. in connection with present petitioners. , learned State counsel contends that the petitions are not availed the remedy available to arrest bail. Issuing a direction to issue prior notice before arrest, only amounts to restraining the respondents accused of committing a cognizable custody is required for investigation. It will be a fetter on the and hamper investigation. He , dated 04.08.2025, were issued presence before the SIT on 05.08.2025; they, and no fresh notice was issued None of them is an accused so far; accordingly, apprehension of relied upon the judgment in Vijaykumar Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010, wherein the Supreme Court had set aside a direction two hours advance notice before laid down in Union of India v. Padam 305. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been position, the petitioners have not been nominated as accused in either of the cases aforementioned. They were issued se notice to enable him (iii) It is made clear that this court has not entered into the and the observation made section , learned State counsel contends that the petitions are available to prior notice before arrest, only amounts to restraining the respondents cognizable on the . He issued , issued ccordingly, apprehension of Vijaykumar , 2022 direction advance notice before Padam Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been not been issued Aman Dua 2025.08.26 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CRM-M-42636 CRM-M-46624 impugned notice witnesses before the SIT; however, kind has been issued to so far of committ under investigation. superfluous. And respect to a notice which the petitioner future under Section 160 Cr.P.C Narain Aggarwal before arresting condition upon only obstructs and curtails a person said to have committed a non by law. The observations in this regard are as follows: 44. In the case on hand, the respondents were only summoned under Section 108 of the Act for recording of their statements. The High Court was consc therefore, held that the applications for anticipatory bail, in the circumsta disposed of by directing the respondents to appear before the Customs Authorities. stated t offence against the applicants not be arrested without ten days prior notice to them. 45. In our judgment, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present c legal, valid or in consonance with law. Firstly, the order passed by the High Court is a blanket one as held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in 42636-2025 with 46624-2025 -8- impugned notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C., before the SIT; however, they chose not to has been issued to either of them thereafter, nor of committing any offence concerning the cases under investigation. The impugned notices ha And this Court finds no justification to issue any direction with respect to a notice which the petitioners presum future under Section 160 Cr.P.C. Besides, in terms of Narain Aggarwal case ibid. no direction to give prior notice to the petitioner before arresting them can be issued. It has been held that condition upon the investigating agency to issue prior notice to the accused only obstructs and curtails its authority to exercise statutory power of arresting a person said to have committed a non-bailable offence by law. The observations in this regard are as follows: 44. In the case on hand, the respondents were only summoned under Section 108 of the Act for recording of their statements. The High Court was conscious and mindful of that fact. I herefore, held that the applications for anticipatory bail, in the circumstances, were premature. They were, disposed of by directing the respondents to appear before the Customs Authorities. The Court, however, did not stop there. It stated that even if the Customs Authorities find any non offence against the applicants (the respondents herein), they shall not be arrested without ten days prior notice to them. 45. In our judgment, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, neither of the above directions can be said to be legal, valid or in consonance with law. Firstly, the order passed by the High Court is a blanket one as held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh dated 04.08.2025, to appear as chose not to. No other notice of the thereafter, nor have they been accused any offence concerning the cases in question which are have already become otiose and this Court finds no justification to issue any direction with presume will be issued to them in in terms of law laid down in Padam no direction to give prior notice to the petitioners It has been held that imposing such a agency to issue prior notice to the accused, authority to exercise statutory power of arresting bailable offence; this is unwarranted by law. The observations in this regard are as follows: 44. In the case on hand, the respondents were only summoned under Section 108 of the Act for recording of their statements. ious and mindful of that fact. It, herefore, held that the applications for anticipatory bail, in the nces, were premature. They were, accordingly, disposed of by directing the respondents to appear before the The Court, however, did not stop there. It hat even if the Customs Authorities find any non-bailable (the respondents herein), they shall not be arrested without ten days prior notice to them. 45. In our judgment, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ase, neither of the above directions can be said to be legal, valid or in consonance with law. Firstly, the order passed by the High Court is a blanket one as held by the Constitution Gurbaksh Singh and seeks to grant to appear as of the accused which are become otiose and this Court finds no justification to issue any direction with in Padam s a , authority to exercise statutory power of arresting is unwarranted 44. In the case on hand, the respondents were only summoned under Section 108 of the Act for recording of their statements. t, herefore, held that the applications for anticipatory bail, in the accordingly, disposed of by directing the respondents to appear before the The Court, however, did not stop there. It bailable (the respondents herein), they shall 45. In our judgment, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ase, neither of the above directions can be said to be legal, valid or in consonance with law. Firstly, the order passed by the High Court is a blanket one as held by the Constitution seeks to grant Aman Dua 2025.08.26 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CRM-M-42636 CRM-M-46624 protection to t offence. Secondly, it illegally obstructs, interferes and curtails the authority of the Customs Officers from exercising statutory power of arrest of a person said to have committed a non offence by im a condition not warranted by law. The order Court to the extent of directions issued to the Authorities is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, directing the respondents to serve would amount to giving examining the material, if any, against them and was needed. In case petitioner mentioned above or apprehend such an eventuality and the consequential arrest, they ha competent jurisdiction. 10. The judgment in law laid down by the Supreme Court, 11. Both the petitions, accordingly, stand dismissed. 12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file 22.08.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? 42636-2025 with 46624-2025 -9- protection to the respondents in respect of any non offence. Secondly, it illegally obstructs, interferes and curtails the authority of the Customs Officers from exercising statutory power of arrest of a person said to have committed a non offence by imposing a condition of a condition not warranted by law. The order Court to the extent of directions issued to the Authorities is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, directing the respondents to serve seven days’ prior notice on the petitioner would amount to giving them a blanket protection from arrest without even examining the material, if any, gathered/to be gathered by the investigators and it being determined whether . In case petitioners are nominated as accused in either of the cases mentioned above or apprehend such an eventuality and the consequential have the remedy in law to seek pre competent jurisdiction. The judgment in Sutapa Adhikari law laid down by the Supreme Court, cannot advance the petitioners’ case Both the petitions, accordingly, stand dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? he respondents in respect of any non-bailable offence. Secondly, it illegally obstructs, interferes and curtails the authority of the Customs Officers from exercising statutory power of arrest of a person said to have committed a non-bailable posing a condition of giving ten days’ prior notice, a condition not warranted by law. The order passed by the High Court to the extent of directions issued to the Customs Authorities is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is hereby set Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, directing the prior notice on the petitioners before arrest, blanket protection from arrest without even gathered/to be gathered by the investigators whether their interrogation in custody nominated as accused in either of the cases mentioned above or apprehend such an eventuality and the consequential the remedy in law to seek pre-arrest bail from the Court of Sutapa Adhikari case, being at variance with the advance the petitioners’ case. Both the petitions, accordingly, stand dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected file. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No bailable offence. Secondly, it illegally obstructs, interferes and curtails the authority of the Customs Officers from exercising statutory bailable giving ten days’ prior notice, passed by the High Customs Authorities is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is hereby set Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, directing the , blanket protection from arrest without even gathered/to be gathered by the investigators in custody nominated as accused in either of the cases mentioned above or apprehend such an eventuality and the consequential arrest bail from the Court of case, being at variance with the Aman Dua 2025.08.26 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document