Anticipatory Bail Denied in Murder Conspiracy: P&H High Court Emphasises Need for Custodial Interrogation Despite Non-Naming in FIR

Case Name: Sukhpreet Singh v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 01 April 2026

Citation: CRM-M-12364 of 2026

Bench: Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in serious offences like murder involving criminal conspiracy where custodial interrogation is necessary. Even if the accused is not named in the FIR, subsequent material such as disclosure statements indicating involvement can justify denial of pre-arrest bail.

Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of a planned armed attack resulting in death. The prosecution case alleged that due to prior enmity, the petitioner along with co-accused conspired and executed a fatal assault using firearms.

The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and had been nominated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused. It was contended that no specific injury was attributed to him and no recovery was to be effected.

The State opposed the bail, contending that the petitioner was actively involved in the conspiracy and his custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the modus operandi and recover weapons used in the crime.

The Court observed that at the stage of anticipatory bail, the nature and gravity of the offence, role attributed to the accused, and the requirement of effective investigation are crucial considerations. It held that custodial interrogation plays a vital role in unearthing material evidence and cannot be substituted by mere cooperation under protection of pre-arrest bail.

Relying on settled principles, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted where it may hamper investigation, particularly in serious offences involving conspiracy and violence.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition, holding that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for effective investigation and no ground for pre-arrest protection was made out.