The Court reaffirms that upon satisfactory joining of investigation and absence of custodial interrogation requirements, interim pre-arrest bail may be made absolute; this judgment upholds settled principles on the grant of bail under Indian law and is binding within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/52507/2025 of HARPREET SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011509742025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing bail jurisprudence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Bail; Pre-arrest Bail; Interim to Absolute Bail |
| Questions of Law | Whether interim pre-arrest bail can be made absolute after the accused joins investigation and custodial interrogation is not required. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that where the petitioner has joined investigation as directed and the State does not require custodial interrogation, pre-trial incarceration is not necessary. Therefore, interim bail granted earlier can be made absolute, subject to statutory conditions. This reaffirms the principle that personal liberty should not be curtailed without necessity. The decision was rendered without commenting on the merits of the case. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner faced his fourth petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, and Sections 10 and 24 of the Immigration Act. Previous petitions were dismissed or withdrawn. He joined the investigation pursuant to interim bail. The State confirmed no requirement of custodial interrogation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Established bail jurisprudence (no specific cases cited in the judgment) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that if the petitioner joins investigation and custodial interrogation is not required, interim pre-arrest bail may be made absolute.
- The non-requirement for custodial interrogation is a decisive factor in confirming interim protection.
- Petitioners who comply with investigative authorities’ directions strengthen their case for continuation of bail.
- The Court disposed of the main petition and noted that pending applications, if any, were rendered infructuous upon grant of bail.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted interim bail earlier with the direction to join investigation.
- Upon confirmation from the State that the petitioner had joined the investigation and custodial interrogation was not required, the Court assessed the necessity of pre-trial incarceration.
- The Court observed that in the absence of need for custodial interrogation, keeping the accused in custody would not serve the purpose of justice.
- Following this, the interim order was made absolute, subject to compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
- The Court was careful to not comment on the merits of the matter pending trial.
- The procedural safeguard of converting interim bail to absolute bail upon compliance was reaffirmed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Had joined the investigation as directed by the Court.
- Sought confirmation of interim bail, highlighting compliance with conditions and that no custodial interrogation was required.
State
- Confirmed that the petitioner joined the investigation on 22.09.2025.
- Stated that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required.
Factual Background
The petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 144 dated 29.05.2024 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 10 & 24 of the Immigration Act at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. After three earlier unsuccessful or withdrawn bail petitions, the Court had granted interim bail with instructions to join investigation. The petitioner complied, and the State affirmed that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Statutory Analysis
- The order is based on general principles of pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail, with reference to Section 482(2) of the BNSS concerning conditions for bail.
- No specific statutory provisions were interpreted or read down beyond the practical application of conditional bail.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment reiterated the process where interim pre-arrest bail may seamlessly become absolute once the accused joins the investigation and no further custody is sought by the police.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.