Anticipatory bail made absolute where accused joined investigation and custodial interrogation was no longer required.

The petitions arose from FIR No. 55 dated 29 April 2026, registered at Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 304, 324(4), 332(c), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 307, 323, 324, 506, 379-B, 427, 451, 148 and 149 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that, after a roadside altercation, the petitioners returned with 8–10 persons, trespassed into the complainant’s factory while armed, assaulted him, caused head and dental injuries, snatched and damaged his mobile phone and smart watch, and fled when factory workers intervened.

The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the prosecution had suppressed the genesis of the occurrence.

Petitioner Jaskaran Kaur had allegedly submitted Complaint No. 321 (Dasti) dated 25 April 2026, which was followed by registration of the FIR after approximately four days.

The State confirmed that the petitioners had joined the investigation and that their custodial interrogation was no longer required.

The status report further disclosed that Jaskaran Kaur’s complaint resulted in a cross-FIR, namely FIR No. 119 dated 8 September 2026, against Himanshu Uppal under Sections 115(2), 74 and 351(2) BNS.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the protection of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS in view of the rival versions, cross-case, and allegations arising from the same occurrence?

2. Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioners was necessary when they had joined the investigation and the State reported that their further custodial interrogation was not required?

3. Whether the interim protection earlier granted to the petitioners should be made absolute, subject to the statutory conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant pre-arrest bail where the circumstances justify protection from arrest, subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 482(2) BNSS.

The relevant principle applied was that custodial interrogation is not warranted where the accused have joined and cooperated with the investigation, the investigating agency does not seek their further custody, and no recovery is shown to depend upon custodial interrogation.

The Court also considered the existence of rival versions and cross-cases as circumstances requiring assessment of the parties’ relative culpability at trial rather than conclusively at the stage of anticipatory bail.

The Court found that the case involved rival versions of the occurrence, supported by the subsequent registration of a cross-FIR on the complaint of Jaskaran Kaur.

Although the allegations against Jaskaran Kaur were specific and involved use of an iron rod, the complainant had been discharged from the hospital, and the determination of the actual aggressor and the petitioners’ relative culpability would require appreciation of evidence during trial.

In Harpreet Singh’s case, the allegation was confined to a single blow on the complainant’s thigh.

Most importantly, both petitioners had joined the investigation, cooperated with the investigating agency, and the State expressly stated that their custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

Since no specific recovery was dependent upon their custody, the Court held that the investigation could proceed without subjecting them to custodial restraint.

The petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 55 dated 29 April 2026, subject to their continued compliance with the conditions stipulated under Section 482(2) BNSS.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as infructuous.