'No Blanket Orders Can Be Passed Directing Service Of Notice Before Arrest': P&H High Court Reject's Former SAD Member Ranjit Gill's Plea

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that no blanket protection can be granted to an accused, requiring the investigating agency to serve prior notice before arrest, as the same will amount to curtailing its authority against a person alleged to have committed a non-bailable offence.

The observation came while dismissing a petition filed by former Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) member Ranjit Singh Gill, who had sought directions to the State to serve at least two weeks notice to him in case he is required to be arrested in any criminal case registered, on the ground that he is being harassed by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab on account of political vendetta as he has recently joined BJP.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "In terms of law laid down in Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal and others, [(2008) 13 SSC 305]. 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 added that 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 against them and it being determined whether their interrogation in custody was needed.

In case petitioners are nominated as accused in either of the cases mentioned above or apprehend such an eventuality and the consequential arrest, they have the remedy in law to seek pre-arrest bail from the Court of competent jurisdiction, the bench said.

Gill along with another stated in the plea that the action of the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab in carrying out multiple searches at the premises of petitioner on the same day of him joining the opposition party, depicts malafide intention of Vigilance Bureau, especially once they have no jurisdiction as the petitioner is not the public servant and the same is also contrary to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Punjab's Vigilance Bureau.

Additional AG Chanchal Singla submitted that that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have not availed the remedy available to them under law to seek pre-arrest bail. Issuing a direction to issue prior notice to the petitioner before arrest, only amounts to restraining the respondents from arresting them even if they are accused of committing a cognizable offence and their custody is required for investigation. It will be a fetter on the respondents' power to investigate the cases and hamper investigation. 

The Court noted that the petitioners have not been nominated as accused in either of the cases and they were issued impugned notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C., dated 04.08.2025, to appear as witnesses before the SIT; however, they chose not to.

"No other notice of the kind has been issued to either of them thereafter, nor have they been accused so far of committing any offence concerning the cases in question which are under investigation," the bench said.

Justice Dahiya said that the impugned notices have already become otiose and superfluous and the 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

Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Senior Advocate with 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.

Title: RANJIT SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Click here to read/download order