The High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed that the amicable settlement of the dispute between private parties, the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation, and deposit of the disputed amount justified grant of anticipatory bail; the judgment applies BNSS provisions and clarifies that custodial interrogation for recovery alone is insufficient ground to deny such protection. This decision serves as binding precedent for subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/32869/2025 of SANDEEP KUMAR ALIAS DEEPU Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010952732025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that when the private parties settle the matter amicably, the petitioner joins and cooperates in the investigation, and the disputed amount is duly deposited, anticipatory bail can be granted. Custodial interrogation sought solely for recovery is not, by itself, a ground to deny such relief. The interim protection granted earlier was made absolute subject to statutory conditions under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. The order does not grant blanket protection; it is case/FIR-specific and subject to strict compliance with statutory conditions. The State and complainant retain liberty to seek recall if conditions are breached or for sufficient cause. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in an FIR involving a loan transaction and offences under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) BNSS and Section 24 of the Immigration Act. The Court previously granted interim bail on condition of depositing Rs. 8 lakhs (with interest) and cooperation with the investigation. Subsequent mediation resulted in an amicable settlement between the parties. The petitioner complied with investigation requirements. The State sought further custody only for recovery purposes. The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the deposited amount to the complainant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be cited for interpretation of Section 482 BNSS, 2023 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that when parties settle their dispute amicably, and the accused deposits the disputed amount and cooperates with investigation, anticipatory bail may be granted even if the State seeks custody for the sole purpose of recovery.
- The order underscores that custodial interrogation for recovery alone is not a bar to anticipatory bail when statutory and equitable conditions are satisfied.
- Protection is conditioned to the specific FIR and is not a blanket order for all future or unrelated offences.
- The court explicitly reserves liberty for the State or complainant to seek recall or cancellation of bail if statutory conditions are breached.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the petitioner was implicated in a loan transaction-related FIR and had deposited the disputed amount (with interest) as directed.
- Mediation at the High Court’s Mediation & Conciliation Centre resulted in an amicable settlement between the private parties, and all parties confirmed the same.
- The petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and complied with interim bail conditions.
- The State’s argument for custodial interrogation was only for “effecting recovery,” which, in the presence of a settlement and deposit, was not found to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- The Court made interim protection absolute subject to compliance with Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023, emphasizing no blanket immunity and reserving liberty to approach for recall if terms are violated.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner was falsely implicated in an FIR arising from a loan transaction.
- Petitioner was willing to show bona fides by depositing Rs. 8 lakhs with interest.
- Committed to cooperating with the investigation and joining as directed.
Complainant
- The matter was amicably settled between the parties.
- Settlement was confirmed in mediation and by counsel in court.
State
- Confirmed petitioner joined the investigation.
- Sought custodial interrogation solely for the purpose of effecting recovery.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a loan transaction, with an FIR registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal. The petitioner was implicated and sought anticipatory bail. The High Court granted interim protection upon deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs (with interest) and cooperation with the investigation. The private parties settled the matter at the High Court’s Mediation & Conciliation Centre. The petitioner complied with all court directions, deposit requirements, and joined the investigation. The State sought further custody only for recovery.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was the principal statutory provision considered, specifically regarding anticipatory bail and conditions for such relief.
- The Court emphasized the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS for granting bail, including compliance by the petitioner and the non-blanket, case-specific nature of protection.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed the matter to the High Court’s Mediation & Conciliation Centre, leading to successful settlement and contributing to the resolution of the bail application.
- Order direct release of the deposited amount to the complainant upon identification.
- Interim bail protection was given and then made absolute, with rigorous adherence to statutory conditions and clear avenues for recall on breach.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and applies prevailing principles of anticipatory bail, clarifies protection scope, and enforces settlement-based resolution in criminal proceedings.