Punjab & Haryana High Court upholds the primacy of custodial interrogation when authorities need to uncover and identify impersonators supplying fake sureties for bail. The judgment affirms existing precedent that anticipatory bail may be declined in such circumstances, serving as binding authority for subordinate courts dealing with similar fact situations under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
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 on subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (BNSS, 2023) |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when custodial interrogation is required to identify impersonators providing fake sureties. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that when the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain the identities of individuals who impersonated others and provided fake sureties before the trial court, anticipatory bail ought not to be granted. The requirement for custodial interrogation takes precedence over the petitioner’s application for anticipatory relief. The seriousness involved in impersonation and fraud upon the court justifies denial of anticipatory bail where effective investigation is hindered by the grant of such relief. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petition was filed under Section 482 of BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR alleging offences under specific sections of BNS 2023, related to impersonation and use of fake sureties for securing bail. The State submitted that custodial interrogation was essential to determine the identities of those responsible. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts addressing custodial interrogation needs in bail/surety fraud cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS can be denied where custodial interrogation is crucial, especially in cases involving impersonation in judicial proceedings and use of fake sureties.
- Lawyers should be prepared for more rigorous scrutiny of bail applications in offences alleging fraud upon the court.
- Custodial interrogation for the purpose of ascertaining the role and identity of impersonators supplying fake sureties will tilt the scales against anticipatory bail.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the State’s submission via status report that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to uncover the identities of the individuals who appeared before the trial court by impersonation and furnished fake sureties.
- The Court found that this investigative necessity outweighed the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.
- No anticipatory relief was granted as it would impede the ongoing investigation into a serious court-related fraud involving impersonation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in connection with an FIR alleging offences under BNS, 2023.
Respondent (State)
- Argued that custodial interrogation was essential for ascertaining the names of persons who appeared before the trial court by impersonation and furnished fake sureties.
Factual Background
The petitioner faced accusations in FIR No. 62 (dated 05.03.2025) registered at Police Station Division No.5, District Ludhiana Police Commissionerate, for offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023. The allegations pertained to impersonation before a trial court and furnishing of fake sureties for bail. The petitioner filed for anticipatory bail. The State submitted a status report indicating the necessity for custodial interrogation to identify the impersonators.
Statutory Analysis
- The application was made under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, which deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
- The offences were listed under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically relating to impersonation and fraudulent sureties.
- The judgment did not undertake a detailed interpretation of these sections, focusing on the application of procedural law concerning the need for custodial interrogation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms established principles regarding the denial of anticipatory bail where custodial interrogation is essential for investigation.