Blanket Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable: P&H High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Protection on Mere Apprehension of FIR

Case Name: Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 01 April 2026

Citation: CRM-M-17032 of 2026

Bench: Justice Rupinderjit Chahal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that blanket or general anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely on apprehension of arrest without reference to a specific offence. Pre-arrest bail must relate to a definite accusation and cannot operate as a shield against all future or unspecified allegations.

Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory (blanket) bail on the ground that he apprehended false implication in non-bailable offences due to a dispute with a private individual and alleged collusion with police officials.

It was contended that the dispute was essentially civil in nature involving a loan transaction, and that the complainant was attempting to misuse blank signed papers to extract money. The petitioner further alleged harassment by police officials and sought protection from arrest despite no FIR having been disclosed.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that such a request amounts to abuse of process and would unduly interfere with the statutory powers of investigation.

The Court examined the legal position on anticipatory bail and reiterated that such relief cannot be granted in abstract or as a blanket protection. It emphasized that anticipatory bail must be based on specific facts relating to a particular offence and cannot be sought as a general safeguard against possible future allegations.

Relying on settled Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that blanket anticipatory bail would obstruct investigation and could potentially shield unlawful conduct beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no case for grant of blanket anticipatory bail was made out in absence of any specific FIR or defined accusation.