SC Shields Liberty: Interim Protection Granted Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail Plea

Case Name: Sumin v. State of Haryana
Date of Order: September 26, 2025
Citation: SLP (Crl.) No. 15461 of 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court protected the petitioner from arrest in FIR No. 227 of 2018 (PS Nagina, District Nuh) despite the pendency of his anticipatory bail application, holding that the Punjab and Haryana High Court should have considered his plea for interim relief at the admission stage rather than merely adjourning the matter. The Court clarified that when notice is issued in anticipatory bail cases, interim relief should ordinarily be granted to safeguard liberty until the matter is heard.

Summary: The petitioner’s anticipatory bail plea before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was adjourned without interim protection. The FIR, registered in 2018, pertained to an alleged abduction, but the petitioner was not named in the FIR and was implicated only through a counter-affidavit by the complainant, with no fresh evidence or specific role attributed. The petitioner argued that such adjournment without interim relief violates established Supreme Court precedents, including Ashutosh Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Prabhu Narayan Ram v. State of U.P., which stress the necessity of granting or rejecting interim protection instead of indefinite adjournments. The Supreme Court issued notice, returnable in six weeks, and directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner, subject to his cooperation with the investigation.

Decision: Notice issued returnable in six weeks. Interim protection granted no coercive action against the petitioner if he joins and cooperates in the investigation. Petitioner directed to appear before the IO on October 3, 2025, or any other date fixed by the IO.