The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that when an accused granted interim anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, joins and fully cooperates with the investigation and custodial interrogation is no longer required, the interim order of bail should be confirmed and made absolute. This decision upholds established procedure and serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction and persuasive authority for other courts dealing with requests to confirm anticipatory bail after compliance with interim conditions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/33471/2025 of YODHWINDER SINGH @ YODHA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010973102025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether interim anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS should be confirmed and made absolute upon the accused’s compliance with investigation? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that upon the petitioner joining investigation and fully cooperating as per interim bail conditions, and where custodial interrogation is not required, the interim anticipatory bail must be made absolute. Confirmation is subject to ongoing cooperation and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS. The court relied on the established practice of making ad-interim orders absolute post compliance, supported by the State’s confirmation that no custodial interrogation is required. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner was booked under various sections of the BNSS. Interim anticipatory bail was granted with a direction to join investigation, which was complied with. The State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, legal practitioners, and possibly Supreme Court |
| Follows |
Interim anticipatory bail confirmation procedure once compliance is established; follows previous coordinate bench decision in CRM-M-30398-2025 for co-accused |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that full compliance with interim anticipatory bail conditions—including joining and cooperating with investigation—obliges the court to confirm and make interim bail absolute, where custodial interrogation is not required.
- State opposition is not sustained where it concurs that custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
- Lawyers may rely on this as clear authority when seeking confirmation of interim anticipatory bail post-compliance with interim conditions under Section 482 BNSS.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioner’s compliance with the interim order by joining and cooperating with the investigation, as required by the anticipatory bail order.
- The State confirmed that custodial interrogation was no longer required.
- Based on these established facts and compliance, the court held that the interim anticipatory bail should be made absolute.
- The court directed that ongoing cooperation and adherence to conditions under Section 482(2) of BNSS was necessary.
- The principle applied follows the established line of cases and judicial discretion regarding the confirmation of anticipatory bail when interim conditions are met and when the prosecution raises no further need for custody.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Only role attributed was causing a minor injury.
- Co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail in similar circumstances.
- Petitioner had joined and cooperated fully with the investigation as per interim conditions.
- Requested for confirmation of interim anticipatory bail.
Respondent (State):
- Confirmed petitioner’s compliance—joining and cooperating with the investigation.
- Stated that custodial interrogation was not required at this stage.
- Did not oppose confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Factual Background
The petitioner was booked under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, through FIR No. 24 dated 23.03.2025 registered at Police Station Ghagga, District Patiala. The only role attributed was causing an injury to the complainant. Interim anticipatory bail was granted, subject to the petitioner joining and cooperating with the investigation. The petitioner complied with these conditions. The State confirmed no custodial interrogation was required, leading to the application for confirmation of anticipatory bail.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: The court exercised its inherent powers under this provision to grant and confirm anticipatory bail. The order referenced obligations under Section 482(2), imposing continuing duties on the accused to cooperate with investigation and comply with court conditions.
- No expansive or narrow interpretation beyond application of existing procedure for anticipatory bail was undertaken.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed established procedure for confirmation of anticipatory bail following compliance with interim directions.