Punjab & Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail in kidnapping and assault case, underscores necessity of custodial interrogation
Case Name: Fardeen v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: October 06, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-56669-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with FIR No. 838 dated November 7, 2024, registered for offences under Sections 115, 117(2), 140(4), 190, 191(3), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), at Police Station Camp Palwal. The Court held that custodial interrogation was indispensable in light of the grave allegations of kidnapping, assault, and grievous injuries inflicted on the complainant. Citing Kishor Vishwasrao Patil v. Deepak Yashwant Patil (SLP (Crl.) No. 1125 of 2022), Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, and State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be exercised sparingly where arrest is not necessary for effective investigation.
Summary: The FIR alleged that on November 6, 2024, the complainant Yasin, along with his son Sharukh and friends Gauri @ Gaurav, Manoj, and Hemant, attended a marriage function at Bakshi Farm, Shyam Nagar, Palwal, when they were attacked by the accused persons armed with lathis, dandas, and hammers. The complainant was allegedly kidnapped, taken to the office of one Saleem in Mohan Nagar, assaulted brutally, and later thrown on the road with threats not to interfere in the future. The injuries sustained included multiple fractures on the hands, legs, and chest, corroborated by medical evidence.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, had no connection with the incident, and was previously granted bail before additional offences were added. It was argued that there was no recovery pending and that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed bail, stressing that the allegations were grave, corroborated by the medical report and call detail records (CDR), and that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was crucial to uncover the broader conspiracy.
Justice Sumeet Goel noted that the investigation was ongoing and that the allegations indicated deliberate and violent conduct resulting in serious injuries. The Court observed that anticipatory bail, if granted, would prejudice the investigation, enable tampering with evidence, and potentially allow the petitioner to influence witnesses. Relying on Anil Sharma (supra), the Court emphasized that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more effective than questioning under pre-arrest protection, especially in cases involving multiple accused and serious offences.
Decision: The Court held that the petitioner did not deserve anticipatory bail, given the seriousness of the allegations, corroborative medical evidence, and the ongoing investigation. It dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the full scope of the conspiracy and to ensure fair investigation. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.