The High Court affirmed that pre-arrest/anticipatory bail granted under Section 482(2) of BNSS may be made absolute once the petitioner has joined investigation and is not required for further custodial interrogation. This decision affirms existing anticipatory bail standards, clarifies application under BNSS 2023, and will serve as binding precedent for future bail matters under similar circumstances in the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/53953/2025 of SURENDER KUMAR YADAV @ SURENDER SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011549242025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law, Procedure (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail under BNSS 2023 can be affirmed/made absolute once the petitioner joins investigation and custodial interrogation is not required. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that after the petitioner joined the investigation as directed, and the prosecution confirmed that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the interim bail could justifiably be made absolute. The order is specifically tied to the matter at hand, with clear caveats against being a blanket order or granting indefinite protection. Future breach of bail conditions would permit recall/cancellation of the order. The holding is rooted in the operative provisions of Section 482(2) BNSS, with contemporaneous compliance by the petitioner and no contrary requirement from the investigating agency. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied upon compliance with earlier interim directions, satisfaction of investigation and law laid out in Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was implicated based on a co-accused’s disclosure, with adverse observations against the police’s investigation from the Sessions Court. After joining the investigation, the police reported that custodial interrogation was not required. The Court had earlier directed interim protection, subject to compliance, and examined the factual matrix, including the petitioner’s cooperation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana under BNSS anticipatory bail context. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment affirms that when a petitioner joins the investigation as directed and the prosecution states custodial interrogation is no longer required, anticipatory/pre-arrest bail protection originally granted may be made absolute.
- The order explicitly clarifies that such protection is not “blanket” or indefinite and applies strictly to the specific FIR/incident.
- Liberty is provided to the State/complainant to seek cancellation if any condition under Section 482(2) of BNSS is violated or other sufficient cause arises.
- Lawyers should note the Court’s expectation of meaningful compliance with the conditions laid out in interim bail, and that orders will not give sweeping, indefinite protection merely due to bail grant.
- The reasoning and operative part give practical guidance for seeking/defending anticipatory bail under the BNSS, especially when the investigation is complete and custodial interrogation not required.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail by the Court, with clear directions to join the investigation and abide by specific statutory conditions under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
- The State, through its counsel and based on investigating officer’s instructions, confirmed that the petitioner joined the investigation and that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
- The Court considered these facts decisive and converted interim anticipatory bail into an absolute order, confining the protection strictly to the case at hand (the particular FIR).
- Explicit caveats were added to guard against blanket or indefinite protection, reserving the prosecution’s right to seek cancellation if circumstances change or conditions are violated.
- The rationale was firmly tethered to compliance with the process and uncontroverted satisfaction of investigational needs, thus balancing the liberty of the individual and the interests of the State.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Implicated in the FIR primarily based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused.
- Police investigation was critiqued by the Sessions Court as lackadaisical, leading to adverse observations.
- Expressed willingness to join and fully cooperate with the investigation.
State
- Initially appeared to oppose, but after compliance, confirmed through police instructions that the petitioner had joined the investigation and was no longer required for custodial interrogation.
Factual Background
The petitioner was named in FIR No.267 dated 28.10.2024, PS Sector 14, Gurugram, invoking offences under Sections 178, 179, 61(2), 237, and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The implication was based on the disclosure of a co-accused, and there were adverse remarks from the Sessions Court on the quality of the police investigation at the stage of the petitioner’s earlier bail rejection. The petitioner expressed willingness to join investigation, acted in compliance with court directions, and the police ultimately reported that no further custodial interrogation was necessary.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced and applied Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, outlining the statutory regime for anticipatory/pre-arrest bail and the conditions that govern its grant and operation.
- The interim and absolute bail were made strictly subject to compliance with the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) BNSS.
- The order emphasized the non-blanket nature of bail protection, statutorily tethered to a specific allegation/FIR.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed that the State’s reply be filed via affidavit of the relevant Deputy Commissioner of Police, particularly to address adverse Session’s Court observations—demonstrating procedural diligence and a focus on police conduct.
- Interim bail, pending decision, was conditioned on an undertaking to join investigation, aligning judicial orders closely with ongoing procedural compliance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established principles regarding anticipatory bail under the newly enacted BNSS, 2023, clarifying their continued application under the new statute.