Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that the petitions challenging notices issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had become infructuous as the petitioners had not been nominated as accused in the concerned cases. The Court dismissed both petitions, stating that the impugned notices had become superfluous and that there was no justification to issue any directions regarding prior notice of arrest. The Court further observed that the petitioners had remedies available in law to seek pre-arrest bail from the competent jurisdiction in the event of their implication in any offence.

The matter before the High Court involved two petitions filed in connection with FIR No. 02 dated 22.12.2021 under Sections 25, 27A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and FIR No. 22 dated 25.06.2025 under Sections 13(1) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both FIRs were registered at Police Station Punjab State Crime, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The petitions were inter-connected and thus decided together.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Sanctity of Power Purchase Agreements Reaffirmed | Absence of Force Majeure Notice Bars Relief; Regulators Cannot Rewrite Contracts Under Equity

The first petition was filed seeking a direction that in case the respondents decided to arrest the petitioner under either of the FIRs, they should serve two weeks' advance notice in accordance with law. The second petition was filed challenging notices dated 04.08.2025 issued to the petitioners under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing them to appear before the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The petitioners contended that they were being maliciously targeted by the Vigilance Bureau of Punjab on account of political affiliation. It was stated that one of the petitioners was a social worker, formerly associated with the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), where he held the position of General Secretary. He resigned from the party in July 2025 and subsequently joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It was alleged that his premises were searched immediately after he joined the BJP, pursuant to warrants issued on 01.08.2025. On the following day, he was issued the impugned notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 02 of 2021.

As per the affidavit dated 11.08.2025 filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police-cum-Chairman, SIT, the petitioner was a close associate of the main accused, Bikram Singh Majithia, in FIR No. 02 of 2021. It was submitted that illicit funds were allegedly invested in Gillco Company owned by the petitioner. During the course of investigation, a witness, Tara Singh Warraich, deposed under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner had close connections with the accused in the said case and that illicit funds were invested in his company. Consequently, the notice dated 04.08.2025 was issued to secure his appearance before the SIT.

The petitioners, however, failed to appear on the specified date. The respondents clarified that the petitioner had not been named as an accused in either of the FIRs till date. They stated that the investigation was being conducted in accordance with law, and appropriate action would be taken if incriminating material emerged during the investigation.

The petitioners, through their senior counsel, argued that they had been implicated only due to their political affiliation and that the issuance of notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was an attempt to secure their presence and arrest them unlawfully. They relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sutapa Adhikari and others v. State of West Bengal and another, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1396, where it was held that a person should not be arrested without prior notice if not named as an accused.

The State counsel, in reply, submitted that the petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners had not availed of the remedy under law to seek anticipatory bail. It was contended that issuance of prior notice before arrest would amount to restraining the investigating agency from exercising its lawful powers in case a person was accused of committing a cognizable offence.

The State also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani v. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010, where directions issued by the High Court to provide seventy-two hours' prior notice before arrest were set aside as being contrary to law. Reference was also made to Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal and others, (2008) 13 SCC 305, wherein the Supreme Court held that imposing such conditions would amount to curtailing the statutory powers of investigation agencies.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya recorded that "as per undisputed factual position, the petitioners have not been nominated as accused in either of the cases aforementioned. They were issued impugned notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to appear as witnesses before the SIT; however, they chose not to appear on the said date, nor has any other notice of the kind been issued to either of them thereafter, nor so far have they been accused of committing any offence concerning the cases under investigation."

The Court further stated that "the impugned notices have already become otiose and superfluous. And this Court finds no justification to issue any direction with respect to a notice which the petitioners presume will be issued to them in future under Section 160 Cr.P.C."

On the plea for directions that prior notice be issued before any arrest, the Court relied on the judgment in Padam Narain Aggarwal, recording that "no direction to give prior notice to the petitioners before arresting them can be issued. It has been held that imposing such a 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; this is unwarranted by law."

The Court also distinguished the judgment cited by the petitioners, noting that the precedent in Sutapa Adhikari’s case could not advance their argument since it was at variance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Also Ready: Bombay High Court | ‘Sprouts News’ Restrained from Publishing Defamatory Material | Orders Take-Down of Articles Targeting Godrej Properties

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya dismissed both petitions, recording that "in the facts and circumstances of the case, directing the respondents to serve seven days’ prior notice on the petitioners before arrest 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 petitioners are nominated as accused in either of the cases mentioned above or apprehend such an eventuality and the consequential arrest."

The Court directed that the petitioners have the remedy in law to seek pre-arrest bail from the competent jurisdiction if they apprehend arrest in connection with the FIRs. The order concluded with the statement: "Both the petitions, accordingly, stand dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. N. K. Verma, Advocate, and Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Case Title: Ranjit Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and others

Neutral Citation :2025:PHHC:111595 

Case Number: CRM-M-42636-2025 and CRM-M-46624-2025

Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya