The judgment reaffirms that when an accused person, implicated only on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement, has duly joined investigation and no recovery has been made from them, interim anticipatory bail may be confirmed, with standard conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS (formerly Section 438(2) CrPC). This approach follows existing precedent and is binding for all subordinate courts dealing with anticipatory bail under similar circumstances in excise offence matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/43365/2025 of ANKIT Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011253402025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench – Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal law – Anticipatory bail under Excise Act (Punjab Excise Act, 1914, Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail can be confirmed for an accused only named in a co-accused’s disclosure statement, who joined the investigation and from whom no recovery has been made. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana regarding anticipatory bail in similar excise offence circumstances |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering anticipatory bail where implication is on disclosure alone and there is cooperation |
| Follows | Supreme Court order dated 06.10.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No.15193/2025, and bail order dated 13.06.2025 for co-accused |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment confirms that anticipatory bail can be made absolute for an accused named only on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure if there is no recovery from them and they have joined the investigation.
- Standard bail conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS (earlier Section 438(2) CrPC) continue to apply.
- Parity with similarly placed and already bailed co-accused is a relevant factor.
- Cooperation with the investigation is a crucial safeguard against custodial interrogation.
- State’s confirmation of non-requirement for further custodial interrogation strengthens the bail plea.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the fact that the petitioner was not apprehended at the scene and was implicated solely due to a disclosure statement by his co-accused, Sumit.
- The co-accused, Sumit, who was similarly situated, had already been granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge.
- Supreme Court’s interim restraint on coercive steps in a similar matter (SLP (Crl.) No.15193 of 2025) was noted, with the condition of cooperation with the investigation.
- The State confirmed proper cooperation by the petitioner, his joining of investigation, absence of recovery, and lack of necessity for further custodial interrogation.
- Interim anticipatory bail already granted was accordingly confirmed on standard conditions, following settled statutory protocol and respecting parity.
- Bail was conditioned on compliance with all statutory requirements, including joining future investigation, not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged implication as being based solely on a disclosure statement of the co-accused, Sumit, who himself was not arrested at the spot.
- Contended that the co-accused Sumit had already been granted pre-arrest bail.
- Asserted compliance with all directions to join investigation.
State
- On instructions from ASI Sandeep Kumar, confirmed that the petitioner had joined investigation.
- Stated that the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation.
- Indicated that no recovery had been made from the petitioner.
Factual Background
The case concerns an FIR (No. 300 of 28.05.2025) registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) at Police Station Industrial Sector 29, Panipat, Haryana. The petitioner was not arrested at the spot but was implicated only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, Sumit, who had already secured anticipatory bail. The petitioner duly joined investigation; the State confirmed that neither any recovery was made from him nor was his custodial interrogation needed.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court applied Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (as amended in Haryana), governing the substantive offence.
- The Court invoked Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023 (replacing Section 438(2) CrPC), for pre-arrest bail and mandatory bail conditions, such as joining investigation, not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, and not leaving the country without permission.
- No interpretation or expansion of other statutory provisions was undertaken.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules, changes to evidence requirements, or sui generis guidelines were issued by the Court in this case.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows established precedent regarding anticipatory bail and statutory compliance under excise offences, particularly where implication is only on a co-accused’s disclosure and cooperation with investigation is established.