Last Updated on October 24, 2026 by Satish Mishra
Interim Anticipatory Bail – Framework & Procedure
- Concurrent Jurisdiction: You can approach either the Sessions Court first or directly file a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. However, High Courts generally expect a valid reason for bypassing the Sessions Court. [1]
- Extraordinary Power: The High Court treats pre-arrest bail as an extraordinary remedy rather than a routine entitlement, heavily weighing whether custodial interrogation is truly necessary or if the evidence is already documentary/seized. [1]
- Mandatory Disclosure: You must disclose all prior criminal antecedents. Actively concealing past FIRs or convictions leads to immediate dismissal and an abuse-of-process ruling (as seen in recent High Court rulings like Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab). [1]
- No Recall/Restoration: If the High Court dismisses a detailed anticipatory bail plea on merits, a second petition or a request to recall/restore the dismissed order is not maintainable per Supreme Court guidelines. [1]
Interim Anticipatory Bail Key Features
- Automatic Lapsing: If the main anticipatory bail application is eventually rejected by the court, the interim protection automatically comes to an end, and the applicant must surrender or seek higher legal remedy
Introduction
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made an interim anticipatory bail order absolute in favour of a 71-year-old woman apprehending arrest in a criminal case registered at Police Station Panjokhra, District Ambala, Haryana.
In Balvir Kaur @ Balbir Kaur v. State of Haryana and Another, decided on 24 September 2026, Justice Sumeet Goel allowed the petitioner’s second petition seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Court particularly considered that the petitioner had joined the investigation and that the State sought her custodial interrogation for the recovery of the money in question. The Court made the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier absolute, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
The Court also clarified that the order was not a blanket protection from arrest and would remain confined to the FIR in question.
Also Read-Anticipatory Bail Cancellation- HighCourt Chandigarh
Case Details
- Case Title: Balvir Kaur @ Balbir Kaur v. State of Haryana and Another
- Case Number: CRM-M-47749-2026 (O&M)
- Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
- Date of Decision: 24 September 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
- Provision Invoked: Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Relief Sought: Anticipatory bail
- FIR: No. 113 dated 13 July 2026
- Police Station: Panjokhra, District Ambala, Haryana
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Balvir Kaur, also known as Balbir Kaur, approached the High Court apprehending arrest in FIR No. 113 dated 13 July 2026.
The FIR was registered at Police Station Panjokhra, District Ambala, for alleged offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
This was the petitioner’s second petition under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking anticipatory bail.
As recorded in the earlier order dated 26 August 2026, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that she was 71 years old, had clean antecedents, and that the genesis of the FIR was essentially a civil or property-related dispute. Counsel also stated that she was willing to join and cooperate with the investigation in accordance with law.
These were submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and should not be treated as final judicial findings on the nature of the dispute or the allegations.
Also Read-ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR PROCLAIMED OFFENDER in High Court
Earlier Interim Protection and Reference to Mediation
On 26 August 2026, the High Court issued notice to the respondents. The State of Haryana and the complainant appeared through their respective counsel.
At that stage, counsel for the parties jointly requested that the matter be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of the High Court.
The Court directed the parties, through their respective counsel, to appear before the Centre on 31 August 2026.
The petitioner was also directed to join the investigation before the Investigating Officer on 29 August 2026 at 11:00 a.m.
The Court provided that, in the event of her arrest, she would be released on interim bail upon furnishing the requisite personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent officer. She was also required to join the investigation whenever further called and comply with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
However, the mediation proceedings did not result in a settlement.
State’s Opposition to Anticipatory Bail
During the subsequent hearing, the State informed the Court that the petitioner had joined the investigation but that her custodial interrogation was required to effect the recovery of the money in question.
The complainant’s counsel strongly opposed anticipatory bail. The complainant argued that the allegations were serious and that granting anticipatory bail could create a likelihood of interference with the investigation, intimidation of witnesses, and intimidation of the complainant.
Thus, the Court was required to consider the State’s request for custodial interrogation and the complainant’s objections against the background of the petitioner having joined the investigation.
Why Did the High Court Make Interim Anticipatory Bail Absolute?
In its order dated 24 September 2026, the High Court considered the factual circumstances, particularly two aspects:
- The petitioner had joined the investigation.
- The State sought custodial interrogation for the purpose of recovering the money in question.
Keeping these circumstances in view, the Court allowed the petition and made the interim anticipatory bail order dated 26 August 2026 absolute, subject to the conditions enumerated under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
The order did not determine whether the allegations in the FIR were true or false. Rather, it decided the petitioner’s request for protection against arrest in the particular criminal case.
Also Read-Proclaimed Offender Anticipatory Bail High Court Chandigarh
Important Clarification: Bail Is Not Blanket Protection
A significant part of the judgment is the Court’s express clarification that the order should not be treated as a blanket order.
The Court stated that the protection would not grant the petitioner indefinite immunity from arrest. It would remain confined to the FIR identified in the proceedings and would not apply to any other incident involving the commission of an offence.
The Court further reserved liberty for the State or the complainant to seek cancellation or recall of the order if the petitioner violated any condition under Section 482(2) of the BNSS or if sufficient cause was otherwise shown.
This clarification underscores the limited scope of the relief granted in the case.
Legal Significance of the Decision
1. Joining the Investigation Was a Relevant Consideration
The Court specifically noted that the petitioner had joined the investigation. This was one of the factual circumstances expressly considered while making the interim anticipatory bail absolute.
The judgment does not, however, establish that joining an investigation automatically entitles every accused person to anticipatory bail. Each application must be considered on its own facts and applicable law.
2. Custodial Interrogation Was Considered in Context
The State sought custodial interrogation for the recovery of the money in question. The Court nevertheless considered the overall factual circumstances, including the petitioner’s participation in the investigation, before granting the relief.
The order should not be read as laying down a general rule that a request for recovery-related custodial interrogation can never justify arrest or custody.
3. Conditions of Anticipatory Bail Remain Binding
The protection was made absolute subject to Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The Court also expressly permitted the State or the complainant to seek cancellation or recall in the event of a violation or other sufficient cause.
The order therefore makes clear that anticipatory bail protection remains subject to compliance with its applicable conditions.
4. The Merits of the Criminal Case Remain Open
The Court expressly clarified that its observations were not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the bail order should not be understood as a finding of innocence, a dismissal of the FIR, or a determination that the underlying dispute was exclusively civil in nature.
Also Read-Anticipatory Bail Period Free Legal Advice Online
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Which court decided Balvir Kaur @ Balbir Kaur v. State of Haryana?
The case was decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on 24 September 2026.
2. What was the case number?
The case number was CRM-M-47749-2026 (O&M).
3. Which provision was invoked for anticipatory bail?
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
4. Why did the High Court grant anticipatory bail?
The Court particularly considered that the petitioner had joined the investigation and that the State sought custodial interrogation for recovery of the money in question.
5. Did the High Court hold that the allegations were false?
No. The Court expressly stated that its observations should not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case.
6. Does the order protect the petitioner against arrest in every case?
No. The Court expressly clarified that the protection was confined to the FIR in question and would not operate in respect of any other incident involving an offence.
7. Can the anticipatory bail order be challenged or recalled?
The Court reserved liberty for the State or the complainant to seek cancellation or recall if the petitioner violated a condition under Section 482(2) of the BNSS or if sufficient cause was shown.
8. Did mediation result in a settlement?
No. The judgment records that the mediation proceedings between the private parties did not fructify.
Also Read-When can Punjab Haryana High Court grant Anticipatory Bail?
Conclusion
The decision in Balvir Kaur @ Balbir Kaur v. State of Haryana and Another highlights the High Court’s consideration of an accused person’s participation in an investigation while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court made the petitioner’s interim anticipatory bail absolute after noting that she had joined the investigation and that the State sought custodial interrogation for recovery of the money in question.
At the same time, the Court carefully limited the scope of its order, clarified that it was not blanket protection from arrest, and preserved the possibility of cancellation or recall in appropriate circumstances.
The decision must be understood within its specific factual context and should not be interpreted as a determination of the merits of the criminal allegations.
Source: Balvir Kaur @ Balbir Kaur v. State of Haryana and Another, CRM-M-47749-2026 (O&M), decided on 24 September 2026, Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes. It is based on the uploaded court order and does not constitute legal advice.
