The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms that anticipatory bail can be declined under Section 482 BNSS when authorities demonstrate the necessity of custodial interrogation to uncover the identities of those who committed impersonation and furnished fake sureties. This judgment underscores that established principles guide the exercise of inherent powers in bail matters and maintains the precedent for future petitions involving similar factual matrices.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/23830/2025 of SURINDER VEERD Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010699792025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Bail under Section 482 BNSS |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be granted when custodial interrogation is specifically required to identify impersonators? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that anticipatory bail should not be granted when the investigation requires the petitioner’s custodial interrogation to identify those who appeared by impersonation and furnished fake sureties before the trial court. The necessity for custodial interrogation outweighs the petitioner’s liberty interests in such circumstances. The inherent powers of the court are not to be used where such intervention may compromise the integrity of the investigation. The State’s status report adequately explained the investigative need for custody. Petition dismissed accordingly. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in respect of an FIR invoking multiple provisions of the BNS. The prosecution opposed on grounds that custodial interrogation was essential to identify those involved in impersonation and the provision of fake sureties in court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and trial courts hearing anticipatory bail under BNSS where custodial interrogation is at issue |
| Follows | Adheres to the established law regarding the limitations on anticipatory bail in cases of investigative necessity |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS cannot be granted where the State establishes the requirement for custodial interrogation to identify impersonators or those providing fake sureties.
- Provides clear judicial backing for investigating agencies who demonstrate specific investigative needs, especially in cases involving fraud on the court.
- Lawyers should prepare strong justifications if seeking anticipatory bail in cases where the prosecution sets out bona fide raisons for custodial interrogation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by considering the petitioner’s application under Section 482 BNSS for anticipatory bail amid allegations including impersonation and provision of fake sureties.
- The State’s opposition, via a status report, argued that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation, specifically to unearth the identities of individuals involved in impersonation before the trial court.
- The Court accepted the prosecution’s reasoning, stating that judicial discretion to grant anticipatory bail must yield where custodial interrogation is essential for the progress of the investigation, especially in cases impacting the administration of justice (e.g., impersonation, fake sureties).
- On this basis, anticipatory bail was denied and the petition dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in relation to an FIR alleging multiple offences.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed anticipatory bail.
- Contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to ascertain the identities of those who appeared by impersonation and furnished fake sureties before the trial court.
- Submitted a status report outlining investigative needs.
Factual Background
The petitioner was named in FIR No. 62 dated 05.03.2025, registered under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. The case involved allegations relating to impersonation and submission of fake sureties in court. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, which was opposed by the State on investigative grounds.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) was invoked by the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail.
- The Court examined the scope of Section 482 BNSS, reiterating that its inherent powers must not be exercised when doing so would disrupt a legitimate and ongoing investigation, especially where custodial interrogation is demonstrably necessary.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law affirmed regarding the threshold for grant of anticipatory bail when investigative necessity requires custody of the petitioner.