Anticipatory bail may be denied in cases involving serious allegations, habitual offending, and when custodial interrogation is necessary for fair investigation, as per Supreme Court guidelines; this judgment upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in evaluating the balance between individual liberty and societal interest.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/43291/2025 of SUNNY DHAWAN ALIAS GURILA BUNNY Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011225002025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS, 2023; Section 25 Arms Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 BNSS, 2023, where serious offences, habitual offending, and necessity for custodial interrogation are cited by the prosecution. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that, considering the seriousness of allegations (use of firearm, prior criminal history, CCTV evidence), and the need for custodial interrogation for effective investigation and potential recovery, anticipatory bail should not be granted. It reaffirmed that courts must balance the accused’s rights against the interest of effective investigation and societal safety. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent to emphasize that custodial interrogation may be necessary and should not be rendered ineffective by pre-arrest bail. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasized the qualitative difference between custodial interrogation and interrogation after grant of anticipatory bail; relied upon the presumption of responsible police conduct as detailed in State vs. Anil Sharma. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | An FIR was registered against unknown persons for an incident at a liquor shop, where the complainant was assaulted with a pistol and fired upon. The petitioner was later implicated based on a co-accused’s disclosure and is visible with a pistol in CCTV footage. The petitioner is alleged to be involved in multiple prior cases including one under Section 302 IPC. Custodial interrogation is sought for further recovery of weapon and apprehension of co-accused. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | State vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that serious criminal allegations, evident from materials such as CCTV footage and firearm use, strongly count against grant of anticipatory bail.
- Emphasizes that custodial interrogation can be vital for effective investigation, especially where weapon recovery and further arrests are pending.
- Disclosure statements of co-accused alone are insufficient to justify grant of pre-arrest bail if other incriminating materials exist.
- Lawyers seeking anticipatory bail for clients with alleged habitual offending will face heightened scrutiny.
- The decision underscores that courts must balance personal liberty with broader community interests and the integrity of investigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court outlined the framework for considering anticipatory bail: balancing the right to personal liberty with the societal interest and the necessity for a fair investigation.
- The seriousness of the offence (use of pistol, firing, beatings), the petitioner’s alleged role as seen in CCTV footage, and his criminal antecedents (involvement in six prior cases, including one under Section 302 IPC) weighed heavily against granting anticipatory bail.
- The court relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in State vs. Anil Sharma, emphasizing that custodial interrogation is sometimes necessary and more effective, and not a mere ritual as may occur if an accused is protected by pre-arrest bail.
- The argument concerning safe police conduct in custody was dismissed with reliance upon Supreme Court presumption of responsible police behaviour.
- The court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary for completing the investigation, including weapon recovery and apprehension of co-accused; thus, anticipatory bail was rejected.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner is falsely implicated based solely on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, which has no legal value.
- Delay in FIR registration weakens the prosecution’s case.
- Lack of credible evidence or medical proof of firearm injury.
- Custodial interrogation is unnecessary; petitioner undertakes to join investigation if required.
Respondent (State)
- The allegations are serious in nature (assault, use of firearm).
- The petitioner is seen in CCTV footage armed and firing shots.
- The petitioner is a habitual offender involved in six previous cases, including one under Section 302 IPC.
- Custodial interrogation is needed for effective investigation, recovery of weapon, and apprehension of a co-accused.
Factual Background
An altercation took place between two groups at a liquor shop in Amritsar, during which the complainant was assaulted with a pistol. An FIR was registered the day after the incident, initially against unknown persons. The petitioner was implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and is allegedly visible in CCTV footage firing a pistol. The prosecution also alleges the petitioner’s involvement in six other criminal cases, one involving murder charges. The police seek custodial interrogation for weapon recovery and to arrest another accused.
Statutory Analysis
- The court interpreted Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 concerning the power to grant anticipatory bail.
- Section 25 of the Arms Act was invoked for weapon-related offences.
- Reference was made to the Supreme Court’s guidance on custodial interrogation and anticipatory bail under criminal law provisions.
- The court did not employ expansive or restrictive interpretation but applied established Supreme Court principles.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are mentioned in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, locus standi rulings, or guidelines were established in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- State vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187