Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner (accused) under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR under Sections 196, 238, 299, 3(5), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra J. dismissed the same and held that the gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace could not be overlooked.
Background
In the present case, the complainant informed that the National Flag hoisted on a Mosque was replaced by a saffron flag. The police rushed there and found that 2-3 unsocial elements had removed the National Flag and had thrown it. The complainant disclosed the names of three of the miscreants and provided an audio as well as video recording. The arrest was made accordingly.
The accused contended that his custodial interrogation was not required as he had no role to play in the entire incident. He argued that he was not even named in the FIR and had been named by the co-accused. On the other hand, the respondent claimed that the accused had intended to create communal tension in the vicinity by hoisting a saffron flag on the Mosque in place of the National Flag.
Analysis and Decision
The Court held that the allegations against the accused were not vague or general in nature but were specific and substantiated by initial investigation. Considering that, the Court held that the gravity of the offence and potential impact on public order and communal peace couldn’t be overlooked.
The Court held that no extraordinary or exceptional circumstance had been brought on record by the accused that would warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly considering the serious communal and constitutional implications of the alleged conduct. The Court stated that it is well settled that custodial interrogation of a suspected person is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well settled with a favourable order under Section 482 of the BNSS.
Keeping in view the nature of allegations as levelled against the accused coupled with the fact that no exceptional or sparing circumstance for grant of pre-arrest bail in favour of the accused was made out, the Court opined that the custodial interrogation of the accused was must and no ground for grant of anticipatory bail was made out.
Hence, the petition was dismissed.
[Vikas Tomar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 5044, decided on 24-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Apoorv Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Rosi, Advocate
