***

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) –

1. Through the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) read with Section 528 of BNSS, the petitioner is seeking grant of blanket bail.

2. Brief facts, as emanating from the petition, are that the petitioner is running a travel agency from a shop situated in the revenue estate of Phagwara, Kapurthala. The said shop was taken by his father Gurjit Singh on lease on 20.06.2023 from one Bikramjit Handa for a period of ten years. It is further submitted that in the month of April, 2024, one Ranjit Singh along with Sarabjit Singh Nagra and Swansh Juneja had claimed that the shop in question had been purchased by them from Bikramjit Handa. The father of the petitioner approached local police for taking action in the matter but to no avail as Bikramjit Handa was a very influential person in the area. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the private respondent and stay order had been passed in his favour. However, on 07.11.2024, his father had died. After his death, the petitioner has taken over the business of his father. It is further submitted that on 16.08.2025 at around 02:30 AM, Bikramjit Handa along with his accomplices entered into the said shop and stole all the valuable articles and demolished the shop with the help of a JCB. In that regard, the petitioner has got registered an FIR bearing No. 196 dated 16.08.2025, registered under Sections 331(2), 324(5), 351, 190 and 191(3) of BNS, 2023 at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala against them. However, after registration of the said FIR, the police officials of different police stations, who are hand in gloves with the private respondents, have been calling upon the petitioner and his family members to police station and making them sit for long hours, thereby causing mental as well as physical harassment to them. The private respondents are also extending threats to spoil the career of petitioner’s brother Jaskaran, who is a Canadian citizen and is in India at present. In view thereof, the petitioner is apprehending his false implication at the instance of the private respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that keeping in view the facts as narrated above, the petitioner be granted protection in the form of blanket bail, so that his liberty may be protected.

4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that at the instance of the petitioner, the aforementioned FIR No. 196 has been registered against the accused persons and the case is still under investigation. At present, no application or complaint whatsoever has been received against the petitioner. The allegations levelled against the police officials regarding harassment of the petitioner are patently false and baseless and are nothing but a pressure tactic. Hence, the dismissal of the petition is prayed for.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. It is an admitted position that presently, the petitioner is neither required in any case nor any complaint or application is pending against him before any of the police stations. His move to knock the door of this Court for a blanket bail is based on an apprehension that he might be implicated in some false case at the instance of the aforesaid persons, who have been booked in aforementioned FIR No. 196, got registered by him. It is well established that when no criminal case or FIR is registered against a person, the grant of anticipatory bail is impermissible as doing so would amount to issuing a blanket protection against all possible future accusations. The law does not contemplate granting such omnibus relief under Section 482 of the BNSS nor can a blanket order be passed to restrain the authorities from arresting an individual in the absence of a specific and existing criminal case. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. vs. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC (2) 565, wherein the law pertaining to the prayer for grant of blanket/pre-arrest bail has been laid down. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:

“41. Apart from the fact that the very language of the statute compels this construction, there is an important principle involved in the insistence that facts, on the basis of which a direction under Section 438(1) is sought, must be clear and specific, not vague and general. It is only by the observance of that principle that a possible conflict between the right of an individual to his liberty and the right of the police to investigate into crimes reported to them can be avoided. A blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because, regardless of what kind of offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant and when, an order of bail which comprehends allegedly unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if he commits, say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can then become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed. Therefore, the court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. The power should not be exercised in a vacuum.”

7. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others 2020 (5) SCC 1; wherein while dealing with the issue in hand and while relying upon its decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra), the following observations were made:

“92.6. An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.”

8. Similar observations were made by the High Court of Kerala in State of Kerala vs. Ansar M. C. and another, Crl. MC. No.4051 OF 2020, decided on 21.10.2020.

9. On applying the abovementioned proposition of law to the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court has no hesitation to observe that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be entertained and such order can be passed as prayed for by him. Accordingly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********