Anticipatory Bail and Investigation Cooperation

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan in the case of Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab (2025) disposed of a criminal appeal, by making interim anticipatory bail protection absolute.  

• The Court established a significant precedent by observing that mere non-discovery of incriminating material is not an indicator of non-cooperation on the part of the accused, while laying down specific conditions for investigation cooperation and witness protection. 

What was the Background of Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab (2025) Case? 

• The appeal arose from an order dated 3rd April 2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh rejecting the appellant's anticipatory bail prayer. 
• The case was connected to FIR No. 06 of 2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran. 
• The appellant's case was that nothing incriminating was recovered from him and he had been falsely implicated only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused Rashpal Singh who had suffered recovery. 
• The appellant had previously been similarly implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement of a co-accused, wherein he was granted anticipatory bail protection. 
• The Supreme Court had granted interim protection on 23rd June 2025, preventing arrest subject to joining investigation when called upon by the Investigating Officer. 
• The State filed a Counter Affidavit admitting that the appellant's implication was based on confessional statement made by co-accused Rashpal Singh. 
• The State alleged non-cooperation in investigation as the appellant stated during questioning that he had thrown his mobile phone in the river. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted that it was not disputed that the appellant did join investigation when called upon to do so. 
• The bench made a significant judicial observation stating that "merely because nothing incriminating could be discovered would not mean that there is non-cooperation on the part of accused". 
• This observation establishes an important precedent regarding the interpretation of non-cooperation in criminal investigations. 
• The State had alleged non-cooperation during questioning when the appellant stated that he had thrown his mobile phone in the river. 
• However, the Court observed that in the Counter Affidavit, it was not stated that any effort was made to trace the appellant's mobile number and collect call detail records. 
• The Court considered the pattern of similar accusations, noting that earlier also the appellant was similarly made an accused based on co-accused statements and was accorded similar protection. 
• The Court deemed it appropriate to make the interim order absolute with specific conditions, effectively disposing of the appeal.  

Court’s Directions: 

The Court disposed of the appeal by making the interim anticipatory bail order absolute subject to two specific conditions: 

• Condition 1: The appellant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating agency. 
• Condition 2: He shall submit bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned along with an undertaking that he shall not threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence. 

What is Anticipatory Bail? 

• Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides for anticipatory bail, allowing a person who fears arrest for a non-bailable offence to apply to the High Court or Court of Session for pre-arrest bail. 
• This provision replaced Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when the BNSS came into effect on July 1, 2024. 
• Under Section 482(2), courts may impose conditions including mandatory availability for police interrogation, prohibition against influencing witnesses, and restriction on leaving India without court permission. 
• The concept of anticipatory bail evolved from the 41st Law Commission Report, which recognized the need to protect individuals from false implication and disgracement through detention. 
• While Section 482 of BNSS retains the essential framework for anticipatory bail, it omits the factors that courts were previously required to consider under Section 438 of CrPC. 
• Clauses (1A) and (1B) of the former Section 438, which contained special provisions regarding sexual offences, have been omitted in the BNSS framework. 
• Clauses (2), (3), and (4) from the original provision in CrPC have been retained substantially in the same form in Section 482 of BNSS. 
• Under Section 482(3), if a person granted anticipatory bail is arrested without warrant, they shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate decides to issue a warrant, it must be a bailable warrant in conformity with the court's direction.