Anticipatory Bail Granted Where No Further Custodial Interrogation Was Needed; Trial Court To Impose Conditions

A bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale of the Supreme Court heard an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's refusal to grant anticipatory bail to a woman facing an FIR under Section 306 IPC. The petition challenged the High Court order dated 17.04.2023 in CRM‑M No. 17439 of 2023 refusing pre‑arrest relief to the appellant.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that, in the event of arrest in FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023 at Police Station‑Gharinda, District Amritsar, the appellant shall be released on bail if she was not required in any other case, subject to such terms and conditions as the Trial Court might deem fit. The Court recorded that the appellant had cooperated with the investigation and relied on the Investigating Officer's communication that "no more custodial interrogation of the appellant is required in the case." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Hence, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, in connection with the case FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023, registered at Police Station‑Gharinda, District‑Amritsar, she shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed or deem fit by the Trial Court." The Court also noted that the State remained "at liberty to file appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail" if any conditions were breached.

Background The dispute arose when FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station‑Gharinda, Amritsar. The appellant moved the High Court for anticipatory bail, which the High Court rejected on 17.04.2023. The appellant then approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14647/2024.

On hearing, counsel for the State fairly submitted that pursuant to an earlier order of this Court dated 21.10.2024 the appellant had joined the investigation as and when required. The Investigating Officer furnished a letter stating that "no more custodial interrogation of the appellant is required in the case." The Supreme Court took that concession into account and found it appropriate to grant the relief sought.

The Court directed conditional bail in the event of arrest, leaving the precise terms to the Trial Court's discretion and permitting the State to move for cancellation of bail if conditions were violated. The appeal was allowed and pending applications were ordered closed. No precedent was expressly overruled or distinguished in the short order; the decision turned on the factual position regarding cooperation with investigation and the absence of need for further custodial interrogation.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP(Crl.) No. 14647/2024 (Arising out of CRM‑M No. 17439/2023, High Court of Punjab & Haryana) Case Title: MAMTA KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate (through VC); Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR For the Respondent(s): Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR