The High Court of Punjab and Haryana holds that interim anticipatory bail, once granted on the petitioner’s joining of investigation and a statement of the State that custodial interrogation is not required, can be made absolute subject to compliance with Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. The judgment applies existing principles to a new statutory context (BNSS, 2023) and clarifies the non-blanket scope of such orders.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/54319/2025 of DHEERAJ Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011559542025 |
| Date of Registration | 23-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Anticipatory Bail – BNSS, 2023) |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be made absolute under Section 482, BNSS, 2023, when the petitioner has joined investigation and custodial interrogation is not required. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially in interpreting anticipatory bail under BNSS, 2023 |
| Follows | Existing standards for anticipatory bail (applied to BNSS, 2023 context) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms applicability of anticipatory bail principles under the newly enacted BNSS, 2023, especially Section 482.
- Clarifies that interim orders for anticipatory bail can be made absolute when the petitioner joins investigation and custodial interrogation is not required per State.
- Anticipatory bail is conditioned strictly by Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023; not to be treated as a blanket or indefinite protection order.
- Scope of the order is limited to the specified FIR; does not confer general immunity from arrest in unrelated matters.
- State and complainant retain liberty to seek cancellation or recall upon non-compliance with statutory conditions or for sufficient cause.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered that the petitioner had joined the investigation in compliance with its previous order.
- The State informed the court that custodial interrogation was not required.
- Noting serious allegations raised by the complainant, the court still found that conditional anticipatory bail was justified based on the facts—specifically the conduct of petitioner and absence of requirement for custodial interrogation.
- The court explicitly limited the scope of its order to the particular FIR at hand and expressly denied the order any blanket application.
- The order restates that violation of the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023, or any other sufficient cause, empowers the State or complainant to seek its cancellation or recall.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed false implication in the FIR.
- Asserted that the cross-case was registered 25 days after the incident.
- No specific role assigned to petitioner in the FIR.
- Willingness to join and cooperate in the investigation.
State
- Confirmed that petitioner joined investigation as directed.
- Stated custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required.
Complainant
- Opposed anticipatory bail on the basis of direct and serious allegations against petitioner.
- Raised concern that granting bail may lead to abscondence and interference with prosecution evidence.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from a cross-FIR scenario where the petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after being implicated in FIR No. 22377 dated 07.07.2025, involving several substantive criminal charges under the BNSS and the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner argued false implication, late registration of a cross-case, and undertook to join the investigation. Interim anticipatory bail was initially granted, after which the State confirmed compliance and indicated no need for custodial interrogation. The complainant opposed the bail due to the seriousness of allegations.
Statutory Analysis
- The court analyzed Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which provides for anticipatory bail, including the conditions under Section 482(2).
- Conditions imposed as per Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023, form the basis for granting anticipatory bail and for setting the boundaries of such orders.
- The court warned that the order is not a blanket protection from arrest, applying specifically and narrowly to the FIR in question.
- Liberty is given for recall/cancellation in case of violation of Section 482(2) conditions or other sufficient cause.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court explicitly directed that anticipatory bail orders under BNSS, 2023, do not amount to blanket protection, clarifying the procedural scope of orders.
- The order provides clear directions for cancellation or recall of bail upon violation of the statutory conditions or other sufficient cause.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing anticipatory bail jurisprudence is applied to BNSS, 2023.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – The FIRs and procedural directions specify precise dates and compliance with investigation timelines.