The court answered that anticipatory bail may be granted under Section 482 BNSS to an accused who has joined investigation and is similarly situated to a co-accused already granted such bail, unless specific roles or injuries are directly attributed, or the State demonstrates compelling grounds for denial. This judgment applies established law, reinforcing the importance of investigative cooperation and parity principles for anticipatory bail, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/30376/2025 of SUKHVIR @ SUKHVEER SINGH @ JASSI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010893132025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-05-2025 |
| 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 in Punjab & Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure – Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be granted, under Section 482 BNSS, to a petitioner who has joined investigation, when a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted such bail. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | CRM-M-28202-2025 titled Saleem @ Mohd. Saleem Vs. State of Punjab (order dated 14.7.2025) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | CRM-M-28202-2025 titled Saleem @ Mohd. Saleem Vs. State of Punjab (order dated 14.7.2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS where the petitioner has joined investigation and is similarly situated to a co-accused already granted such bail.
- Emphasizes the significance of a lack of specific role or injury attributed to the petitioner in anticipatory bail matters.
- Delay in lodging FIR and absence of unique allegations may weigh in favor of granting anticipatory bail.
- Conditions for bail, including joining investigation, refrainment from inducement, and restriction on travel, will be strictly imposed.
- Not a blanket order; protection is only in respect of the specific FIR.
- Police may apply for revocation if order’s conditions are breached.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The court examined whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482 BNSS, 2023. The defense argued absence of specific allegations beyond mere presence at the scene, inexplicable delay of about 26 hours in lodging the FIR, and parity since a co-accused in a similar situation was already granted anticipatory bail. Upon joining the investigation as required, the petitioner was found not needed further for investigation. The State opposed bail citing the seriousness of allegations but did not dispute factual parity with the co-accused. The court followed its prior decision in Saleem @ Mohd. Saleem Vs. State of Punjab (CRM-M-28202-2025) and granted bail subject to standard conditions: available for interrogation, no inducement/threat to witnesses, and restriction on travel abroad—all to apply only to the concerned FIR. The order allowed the prosecution to seek revocation under Section 483(3) BNSS for any breach of conditions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Falsely implicated based on complainant’s statement.
- Petitioner and complainant are known to each other, residing in the same locality.
- FIR lodged after inexplicable delay of 26 hours, allowing for possible improvements in the complainant’s version.
- No specific role or any injury determinably attributed to the petitioner beyond presence at the scene.
- Similarly situated co-accused already granted anticipatory bail.
- Willing to join and cooperate in investigation.
State
- Serious allegations levelled against the petitioner.
- Opposed grant of anticipatory bail due to nature of allegations.
Factual Background
The dispute arose between the petitioner and the complainant, both residents of the same area and acquaintances. An FIR was registered on 18.10.2024 at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla, alleging offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS (with additional sections 74 and 304 of BNS added later). The FIR was lodged after a delay of around 26 hours. The petitioner alleged no specific role or injury was attributable to him besides presence at the occurrence. An order had previously granted anticipatory bail to a similarly placed co-accused. The petitioner joined investigation following the court’s interim protection and is not required further for investigation.
Statutory Analysis
The court considered Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing inherent powers for granting anticipatory bail. It imposed conditions as prescribed in Section 482(2) BNSS regarding cooperation with investigation, non-inducement of witnesses, and travel restrictions. The court clarified that the order of anticipatory bail is not blanket and only applies to the specific FIR, with the police retaining the right to seek arrest for any breach under Section 483(3) BNSS (paralleling erstwhile Section 439(2) CrPC).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The anticipatory bail order is not “blanket”; its application is limited only to the specific FIR named.
- Clear directions given for enforcement and revocation of bail under Section 483(3) BNSS on breach of conditions.
- Imposition of specific investigatory cooperation and conduct conditions as per Section 482(2) BNSS standard.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Grant of anticipatory bail based on similar prior order (Saleem @ Mohd. Saleem), use of established principles, and imposition of standard statutory conditions.