Patiala House Court: In a set of anticipatory bail applications filed by a father and son accused of hiring 30-40 masked men to criminally trespass Hotel Sarovar Portico, Vasant Kunj (“the Hotel”), the Single Judge Bench of Atul Ahlawat, J., allowed the applications holding that no grounds had been made out for seeking their custodial interrogation since the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and the accused persons had co-operated with the investigation.
Background
Before the filing of the present FIR, another case was registered under Sections 64(1), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (“POCSO”), 2012, against the husband of the present complainant.
The complainant’s husband approached the Delhi High Court seeking the quashing of the said FIR along with other reliefs. The High Court directed the police to file a status report regarding the alleged incident. Thereafter, the present FIR was filed against the two accused under Sections 33l(B), 331(6), and 333 of the BNS for allegedly hiring 30-40 masked men to illegally enter the Hotel, committing the heinous offences in question. Allegedly, more than 1000 files and books of accounts of the Hotel were affected.
After the registration of the present case, the Investigating Officer (“IO”) informed the Court that the allegations relating to offences punishable under Sections 331(B), 331(6), 333 of the BNS were found to be not made out, and accordingly, they were dropped. However, Sections 329(3), 117(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3) of the BNS were invoked.
The High Court, vide successive orders, continued to pass certain orders/directions concerning the incident in question. Subsequently, the accused persons herein challenged the orders passed by the High Court before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted liberty to the accused persons to file an anticipatory bail application concerning any FIR if they apprehended arrest. Hence, the present applications were filed.
Time and again, these applications were adjourned, with interim protection being extended for months till the present date.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court remarked that both parties had sought to complicate the matter and had presented an extremely confusing set of facts, when, in reality, the issues involved were not so complex.
“The present bail application runs into around 1134 pages and is accompanied by numerous synopses, brief points of dispute, and a detailed account of the background of the litigation between the parties. The repeated replies and status reports filed by the successive IOs, at times taking contradictory positions, have further added to making the resolution of the matter significantly more challenging.”
The Court further stated that, despite categorical observations made by the Supreme Court as mentioned above, the parties had left no stone unturned in referring to the portions of the successive orders passed by the High Court in the mentioned case and other allied matters that suited their respective narratives. However, since such arguments were beyond the scope of the present applications, they were not considered.
Before addressing the merits of the present applications, the Court noted that the real bone of contention between the parties to the present litigation related to the ownership and possession of the Hotel. Both parties claim to be the rightful owners of the said property.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court stated:
-
The accused persons had duly joined the investigation on 7 separate occasions, as and when called by the IO. The Court opined that no grounds had been made out for seeking their custodial interrogation.
-
The present bail applications must be dealt with respect to the offences specifically alleged against the present accused persons. The Court remarked that the sword of Damocles cannot be hung around his neck till eternity, merely because the current IO is contemplating a review of the invoked sections, or that in the future he may file a supplementary charge sheet.
-
The IO had not issued any notice to the accused persons to join the investigation since the last day of their joining the investigation/appearance. Thus, the Court rejected the argument that since the current IO was recently deputed to the present case, any alleged laxity on the part of the previous IO should not be held against him.
-
The FIR was registered over 7 months ago, and despite the accused persons joining the investigation on more than 7 occasions, the Investigating Agency had not been able to trace the alleged stolen articles.
-
The pendency of the FSL report cannot constitute a ground for custodial interrogation. The original documents had already been placed before the High Court, and the questioned documents, along with the admitted signatures/handwriting samples, had been duly sent to the FSL. Thus, the Court held that there was no further requirement for the custody of the accused persons in relation to the present matter.
-
The investigation was already complete, and the charge sheet against the co-accused persons with respect to the alleged incident had been filed. The Court held that the mere fact that the complainant has filed a protest petition, which was pending adjudication, or that the IO might conduct a further investigation and may file a supplementary charge sheet, could not be a ground to deny the benefit of the present anticipatory bail to the accused persons.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the applications, thereby granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons on the condition that they continue joining the investigation.
[State v. Kanwarjeet Singh Kochhar, Bail Matters 397/2025, decided on 27-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Additional Public Prosecutor Dr. Satish Shukla, Vipul Lamba, and Akash Khurana
For the respondent: Arjun Sayal and Rohit Kumar
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
