The High Court clarifies that once an accused joins the investigation and custodial interrogation is unnecessary, interim anticipatory bail can be made absolute, subject to statutory limits under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The decision upholds established law, reiterates non-blanket nature of bail, and preserves rights for recall/cancellation, thus providing binding authority on interim-to-absolute anticipatory bail transitions in grave offence cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/31981/2025 of HARDEEP SINGH ALIAS KAKA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010934222025 |
| Date of Registration | 06-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail under Section 304, 34 IPC; Section 482(2) BNSS |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that when an accused joins investigation and is not required for further custodial interrogation, interim anticipatory bail may be confirmed as absolute, provided all statutory conditions are complied with. The protection does not extend to indefinite or blanket immunity and is strictly limited to the FIR concerned. The bail is subject to the compliance of Section 482(2) of BNSS, with express liberty reserved for recall/cancellation if conditions are breached or new causes arise. Proceeding observations do not touch upon the merits of the case. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
FIR No. 36 dated 09.04.2025 under Sections 304, 34 IPC was registered after a 7-year delay post-complaint. Petitioner sought anticipatory bail. Interim protection was granted upon willingness to join and actual joining of investigation. The State confirmed no further custodial interrogation was needed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, especially regarding anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) BNSS |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that anticipatory bail, even in serious cases under Section 304/34 IPC, can become absolute if the accused has duly joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is no longer needed.
- Expressly limits the operation of anticipatory bail to the specific FIR and prohibits blanket or indefinite immunity.
- Reiterates that compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS is mandatory; violation can trigger cancellation/recall.
- Maintains State/complainant liberty to seek recall/cancellation if conditions are breached or for other sufficient cause.
- Observations in the order are expressly not to be construed as a pronouncement on merits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The initial grant of interim anticipatory bail was predicated upon the petitioner’s willingness to join and actively cooperating with the investigation.
- Upon submission by State counsel that the petitioner joined investigation and was not required for further custodial interrogation, the Court held that interim protection could graduate to absolute anticipatory bail.
- The operative protection is strictly confined to the FIR in issue, with the order denying blanket immunity covering future or unrelated offences.
- The Court subjected the bail to strict observance of conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) BNSS and reserved explicit liberty for the State/complainant to seek recall or cancellation if these conditions are breached or if new sufficient cause emerges.
- The order refrains from expressing any views on the merits, affirming the bail’s procedural, not substantive, character.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The FIR was registered after an unexplained 7-year delay subsequent to the original complaint.
- Petitioner was and remained willing to join and cooperate with the investigation.
Respondent / State
- Through State counsel, on instruction from the investigating officer, confirmed that the petitioner has joined investigation and no further custodial interrogation is presently necessary.
Factual Background
A complaint was submitted in 2018, but the FIR (No. 36 dated 09.04.2025) under Sections 304 and 34 IPC at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, was registered only after a 7-year delay. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, which was initially granted on an interim basis upon assurance of joining the investigation. He duly appeared and cooperated. It was subsequently submitted by the State that no further custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required.
Statutory Analysis
- The order applies Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, stipulating mandatory conditions governing anticipatory bail.
- The Court directs that conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS must be strictly observed and grounds for recall/cancellation are by express reference to any breach thereof.
- The anticipatory bail order is made explicit as not extending beyond the specific FIR referenced.
Procedural Innovations
- Interim anticipatory bail was made subject to compliance with investigation, with an explicit transition to absolute anticipatory bail upon joining of investigation and no further need for custodial interrogation.
- The order mandates that bail is strictly limited to the offence and FIR in question, preventing overbroad or “blanket” application.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The order upholds and clarifies settled legal principles regarding anticipatory bail and its limits.