The High Court clarified that when accused join investigation and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary by police, anticipatory bail should be confirmed, reaffirming the established legal principles; this ruling follows precedent and is binding on all subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/49771/2025 of JOGRAJ SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011434872025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge (MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be made absolute if the accused join investigation and custodial interrogation is not required. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that when the accused have joined investigation as directed and the Investigating Officer/State confirms no need for custodial interrogation, pre-trial incarceration is unwarranted. Therefore, anticipatory bail (granted earlier as interim protection) should be confirmed and made absolute, subject to statutory conditions. This aligns with established law and safeguards the liberty of accused persons where detention is not justified by investigative necessity. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were accused in a cross-case under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149, later also 326 IPC. They joined investigation as directed by the court. The State confirmed their cooperation and stated custody was not required. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering anticipatory bail where custodial interrogation is not needed |
| Follows | General jurisprudence on anticipatory bail under BNSS/CrPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that successful compliance with interim bail conditions (joining investigation) and police statement that custody is not required, means anticipatory bail should be made absolute.
- Reinforces the limited and exceptional grounds for denying bail when pre-trial custody is unnecessary.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to argue for confirmation of interim anticipatory bail where clients cooperate with investigation and no custodial interrogation is sought by the prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioners joined investigation and that the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, clearly stated they were not needed for custodial interrogation.
- Observed that, in light of the nature of allegations and absence of need for custody, pre-trial incarceration was not justified.
- Accordingly, relying on these facts, the court allowed the petition, confirming and making absolute the earlier grant of interim bail, applying statutory conditions analogous to Section 438(2) CrPC (now Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Had joined investigation in compliance with interim bail order.
State
On instructions from Investigating Officer, submitted that the petitioners had joined investigation and were not required for custodial interrogation.
Factual Background
- Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a cross-case (G.D. No.21 dated 19.06.2024) under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 (and later 326) IPC, relating to FIR No.147 dated 18.06.2024 at PS Jandiala, Amritsar Rural.
- They were granted interim bail on 08.09.2025, with a direction to join investigation.
- After joining investigation on 30.10.2025 and confirmation from the prosecution regarding lack of need for custodial interrogation, the court decided the petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 438 CrPC) was invoked for anticipatory bail.
- Final bail confirmation was made subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, mirroring standard procedural safeguards under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or departures identified in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms existing anticipatory bail jurisprudence.