The High Court emphasized that anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS may be confirmed when the accused has joined and cooperated with the investigation and there is no further requirement for custody, provided standard conditions are fulfilled. The judgment reaffirms established judicial principles, clarifies the limited and case-specific nature of such protection, and serves as binding precedent for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana, especially in offences under Section 74 BNS and Section 12 POCSO.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/52545/2025 of SONY KHAN Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011509102025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail under BNSS |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that anticipatory bail may be granted where the accused has joined the investigation, is no longer required for custodial interrogation, and standard conditions are imposed. The order must not serve as a “blanket” protection and should be confined to the specific FIR and facts. The police retain the right to seek cancellation of bail in case of non-cooperation, inducement, or other violations. The order does not restrict the investigation or other legal obligations of the police. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner faced allegations under Section 74 BNS and Section 12 POCSO Act. There was an 11-day delay in filing the FIR. Both prosecutrix and complainant did not support the prosecution in statements under Section 164 CrPC (183 BNSS). The petitioner joined the investigation as directed and was found not required for further custodial interrogation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reinforced that anticipatory bail may be confirmed when the accused has joined and cooperated with the investigation and is not needed for further custodial interrogation.
- Bail protection under such orders is not a “blanket” shield; it is restricted to the particular FIR and does not apply to future incidents or offences.
- The police are permitted to seek cancellation of bail if the accused violates imposed conditions or disrupts the investigation/trial.
- The judgment clearly reiterates standard anticipatory bail conditions (no inducement, no leaving India without permission, join investigation as required).
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered that the petitioner had complied fully with the directions to join the investigation and that the investigating agency specifically stated there was no further requirement for custodial interrogation.
- It noted the factual backdrop: an 11-day unexplained delay in the FIR and non-support from the victim and complainant in recorded statements.
- The judgment emphasized the importance of limiting anticipatory bail orders to avoid “blanket” protections, maintaining the balance between individual liberty and the interests of justice.
- The Court made the order subject to standard anticipatory bail conditions (no inducement/threat; no travel abroad without permission; ongoing cooperation with investigation).
- Provision was made for the investigating agency to seek cancellation of bail for non-cooperation or attempts to influence witnesses, ensuring continued integrity of the investigation process.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged false implication based on the statement of the prosecutrix’s mother, with no supporting evidence from the prosecutrix herself.
- Pointed out an unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR.
- Highlighted that both the prosecutrix and the complainant did not support the prosecution case in their statements under Section 164 CrPC (183 BNSS).
State
- Informed the court that the petitioner joined the investigation as directed and is no longer required for further investigation.
Factual Background
The case arises from FIR No. 233 dated 22.08.2025, registered under Section 74 BNS and Section 12 POCSO Act at Police Station Amargarh, District Malerkotla. The complaint was lodged based on an allegation by the prosecutrix’s mother regarding an attempt to outrage the prosecutrix’s modesty. There was an unexplained 11-day gap before the FIR was filed. Upon being directed by the Court, the petitioner joined the investigation on 13.10.2025, and both the prosecutrix and complainant did not support the allegations in their Section 164 CrPC (183 BNSS) statements.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 BNSS: Invoked for anticipatory bail; the Court considered its scope for protecting personal liberty subject to cooperation with the investigation and compliance with specific conditions.
- Section 74 BNS and Section 12 POCSO Act: Offences for which the FIR was registered.
- Section 483(3) BNSS (previously Section 439(2) CrPC): Cited for the police’s right to seek cancellation of bail if the accused breaches conditions or obstructs the investigation.
- The Court clarified that the protection granted is specific to the case and subject to ongoing cooperation and compliance with conditions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing principles regarding conditions and limitations attached to anticipatory bail.