The Court clarified that unexplained delay in FIR and parity with similarly situated co-accused granted anticipatory/interim bail are valid grounds for exercising discretion under Section 482 BNSS (anticipatory bail), where disputed factual questions do not justify custodial interrogation. The decision affirms established anticipatory bail principles and is binding on subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/49122/2025 of MOHD IQBAL @ MEJAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011419302025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Kirti Singh |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Punjab & Haryana subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure/Anticipatory Bail (BNSS) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The judgment holds that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is a discretionary safeguard against deprivation of liberty, to be exercised judiciously considering the nature of allegations, antecedents, possibility of fleeing justice, or tampering with evidence. Where there is unexplained delay in lodging FIR and parity exists with co-accused granted pre-arrest bail by the same court, and where allegations are disputed questions of fact to be tested at trial, anticipatory bail should be granted, subject to standard statutory conditions. The protection is not blanket and remains confined to the specific FIR. This does not curtail police’s power to investigate or seek cancellation upon breach. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasis on presumption of innocence, constitutional liberty, parity with similarly situated accused, and classic discretionary considerations for anticipatory bail (nature of allegation, delay, risk of flight, evidence tampering, etc.) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR filed with 26 hours’ unexplained delay under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190, 74, and 304 of BNS at Sadar Ahmedgarh; only allegation was a stick blow; petitioner and complainant knew each other; similarly placed co-accused already granted bail; petitioner joined investigation as directed and was no longer required for further investigation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; practitioners in similar BNSS/anticipatory bail matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that unexplained delay in FIR registration can weigh in favour of anticipatory bail.
- Clarifies that when similarly situated co-accused have been granted pre-arrest bail by the same court, parity applies and bail should generally not be denied.
- Petitioner’s readiness to join and actual joining of investigation may further support grant of anticipatory bail.
- All standard conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS must be imposed; court protection is FIR-specific and non-blanket.
- Anticipatory bail does not restrict police’s investigation or bar the State from seeking cancellation for violation of terms.
- The judgment can be directly cited as binding authority within Punjab & Haryana for parity-based and delay-based anticipatory bail petitions under BNSS.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recognized anticipatory bail as a constitutional safeguard for liberty, to be applied judiciously based on a series of settled considerations: seriousness of allegations, antecedents, flight risk, risk of tampering or intimidation.
- The 26-hour unexplained delay in lodging FIR was held to create factual doubt, rendering custodial interrogation less necessary and supporting bail.
- The parity principle was applied as multiple similarly situated co-accused had already been granted anticipatory/interim bail by the same court in related criminal miscellaneous matters.
- The only substantive allegation was a stick blow, making the case factually similar to co-accused who were granted bail.
- Petitioner joined the investigation as directed, and the State conceded that he was not required for further investigation.
- The Court clarified the scope of its anticipatory bail order: it is not a blanket, indefinite protection and is limited to the particular FIR, with full police power to seek cancellation upon breach of terms; all standard BNSS bail conditions apply.
- Judgments CRM-M-28202-2025 and CRM-M-30401-2025 were followed to ensure uniformity and parity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged false implication due to local acquaintance with complainant.
- FIR lodged after 26-hour unexplained delay, raising possibility of factual improvements.
- Only allegation was a single stick blow; all issues are disputed facts for trial.
- Cited that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted anticipatory/interim bail.
- Petitioner is ready to cooperate and join investigation.
State (Respondent)
- Opposed anticipatory bail, restating nature of allegations.
- On instructions from investigating officer, admitted that petitioner had joined investigation and was not required further.
Factual Background
An FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla, on 18.10.2024 for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190 (and later Sections 74, 304) of the BNS. The complainant alleged that the petitioner gave a stick blow on his back. The petitioner and the complainant were residents of the same locality. There was an unexplained delay of approximately 26 hours in lodging the FIR. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, invoking parity as several co-accused had already received such protection from the same court. The petitioner joined investigation as directed and was found not required for further custodial interrogation.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was interpreted as conferring discretionary power for anticipatory bail, to be used for protection of personal liberty unless strong reasons justify custody.
- Section 482(2) BNSS: Court imposed statutory conditions – appearance before police, no threat/inducement, not leaving India without court leave.
- Section 483(3) BNSS (corresponding to CrPC Section 439(2)): Court retained power for the police to approach for cancellation if bail terms are breached.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Bail order specifically clarified not to be treated as a “blanket” or indefinite protection – it is confined strictly to the FIR in question, upholding discipline in anticipatory bail jurisprudence.
- Standard direction allowing investigating agency to seek cancellation under Section 483(3) BNSS in the event of breach of bail terms was expressly included.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and follows established anticipatory bail principles under both CrPC and BNSS, with reference to grant of bail on grounds of delay and parity with co-accused.