The High Court of Punjab & Haryana affirms that anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, is appropriate when the petitioner has joined investigation and custodial interrogation is not required; the order granting interim bail is made absolute. This serves as binding authority for anticipatory bail proceedings under BNSS, upholding established principles.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/52187/2025 of ASHA DEVI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011499072025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure — Anticipatory Bail under BNSS, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail can be confirmed as absolute when petitioner has joined investigation and custodial interrogation is not required under Section 482 BNSS, 2023? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar bail situations under BNSS, 2023 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, anticipatory bail should be made absolute where the petitioner has diligently joined investigation and custodial interrogation is not required.
- The observations clearly note that commenting on merits is unnecessary for bail confirmation in such situations.
- Lawyers should ensure timely compliance with investigation requirements to strengthen anticipatory bail petitions.
- Statutory conditions under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023, will apply to bail so granted.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioner’s compliance with earlier directions and that she joined the investigation as required.
- Upon the State’s acknowledgment that custodial interrogation is not needed, the necessity for pre-trial incarceration was considered unwarranted.
- The court relied on the principle that bail should be confirmed where investigation cooperation is established, and no further custodial interrogation is sought by the State.
- Interim bail was thus confirmed as permanent, without addressing the case’s merits, and subject to statutory compliance.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Requested anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 96 under Section 420 IPC.
- Contended that she had joined the investigation as directed by the court.
State (Respondent)
- Filed a status report confirming petitioner’s compliance.
- Informed the court that the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation.
Factual Background
The petitioner was named in FIR No. 96 dated 07.06.2025, registered at Police Station Division No.2, District Pathankot, under Section 420 IPC. On 17.09.2025, the High Court granted her interim bail and directed her to cooperate and join the investigation. She joined the investigation on 19.09.2025. The State subsequently stated she was no longer required for custodial interrogation. The court thus allowed the anticipatory bail petition and confirmed the interim bail order, applying statutory conditions.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment considered Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, specifically regarding anticipatory bail provisions. The court directed that the bail be confirmed subject to the compliance with conditions laid down in Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023, but did not discuss interpretation or reading down/up of the statutory text.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established principles for grant of anticipatory bail following compliance with investigation directions and lack of custodial interrogation requirement.