The High Court clarified that, in the factual matrix of this case, an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC can be converted to a regular bail application, and if such interim bail is upheld by the Supreme Court, the High Court may make the order absolute for the specific FIR. This judgment follows existing precedents and is binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/12229/2020 of KALU RAM Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC010371542020 |
| Date of Registration | 12-05-2020 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms interim bail order which was upheld by the Supreme Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Bail under Sections 438 and 439 CrPC; Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court has the authority to convert a petition filed under Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) into one for regular bail in appropriate circumstances. If the interim order granting bail is affirmed by the Supreme Court, and no allegation of misuse arises, the High Court can make the interim bail absolute, confined to the particular FIR. The order is not blanket protection but applies only to the case/FIR referenced, and can be recalled if the petitioner violates bail conditions or for sufficient cause. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on its earlier interim order and the Supreme Court’s order upholding grant of bail, as well as the absence of misuse of bail by the petitioner. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners, apprehending arrest in FIR No.352 (offences under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 504, 505, 506 IPC and various sections of the SC/ST Act), sought pre-arrest bail. The High Court granted interim bail, which was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court. There was no allegation of misuse of bail, leading to the current order making bail absolute. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and, potentially, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that a High Court can convert an anticipatory bail application (Section 438 CrPC) to a regular bail application and grant regular bail in appropriate circumstances.
- If the interim bail is upheld by the Supreme Court and there is no violation, such bail can be made absolute, confined strictly to the specific FIR.
- The order explicitly states it is not “blanket” bail; it is confined to the facts and FIR in question and does not provide indefinite protection.
- The State or complainant retains liberty to seek cancellation/recall of bail if conditions are violated or for sufficient cause.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the initial petition was under Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail), and by reference to orders in connected matters, the Court converted the petition to one for regular bail, granting interim bail subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate.
- The interim bail order was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court, which, after considering submissions on peace prevailing and cooperation of the accused, refused to interfere and affirmed the High Court’s order.
- Citing the Supreme Court’s affirmation and the absence of bail misuse, the High Court made the bail order absolute, but strictly confined it to FIR No. 352.
- The Court took care to clarify this was not a blanket order and reserved liberty to the State/complainant to seek recall if circumstances warranted, making no observation on merits.
- The legal reasoning is grounded on the principle that the High Court possesses the flexibility to ensure justice by converting bail applications as needed, particularly when supported by higher judicial affirmation and the conduct of the accused.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.352.
- Relied on the fact that interim bail had been granted earlier.
State
- Opposed at the stage of interim bail.
- Brought the Supreme Court challenge but, before the Supreme Court, noted that bail had been operating and there was no disturbance.
Respondent No.2 / Complainant
- Represented and participated in proceedings before the High Court and Supreme Court.
Factual Background
The petitioners were named in FIR No.352 dated 03.12.2018 registered at Police Station Sadar Hansi, Hisar, for offences under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 504, 505, 506 of the IPC and various provisions of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. They approached the High Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail. The High Court converted the petition to a regular bail application in view of connected orders and granted interim bail. The order was challenged before the Supreme Court, which upheld the bail. No allegation of misuse having been reported, the High Court made the bail absolute.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were at issue: Section 438 allows for anticipatory/pre-arrest bail, while Section 439 deals with regular bail.
- The High Court held that it could convert a petition under Section 438 to one for regular bail in line with connected matters/orders.
- The bail was granted with explicit reference to the FIR in question and subject to routine statutory conditions.
- The Court clarified the bail was not to be treated as a grant of protection for any future or unrelated incident.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Permitted conversion of anticipatory bail applications to regular bail applications where the circumstances and case history so warranted.
- Provided that such orders, if affirmed by the Supreme Court and unviolated by the petitioner, may be made absolute by the High Court.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on bail affirmed and clarified by the High Court in line with Supreme Court’s affirmation.