LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 09 January 2025

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, what follows on a plea for anticipatory bail where the accused has joined the investigation and the Investigating Officer states that no further custodial interrogation is required?

MAMTA KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB
2025 INSC 49 · Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14647/2024
Coram: Justice Bela M. Trivedi · Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Full text of the Supreme Court of India's judgmentChecked against the originalFree to read
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.306 Indian Penal Code, 1860📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Anticipatory bail — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.306 — Abetment of suicide — Custodial interrogation not required — Liberty to seek cancellation — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Anticipatory bail — Investigation joined — No custodial interrogation required — Held: Where the accused has joined the investigation as and when called upon and the Investigating Officer states that no more custodial interrogation is required, the plea for anticipatory bail ought to be accepted. (¶4, 5) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Anticipatory bail — Breach of conditions — Cancellation — Held further: The State remains at liberty to apply for cancellation should any condition imposed by the Trial Court be violated or breached. Appeal allowed. (¶7, 8)

The questions this judgment answers
1

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, what follows on a plea for anticipatory bail where the accused has joined the investigation and the Investigating Officer states that no further custodial interrogation is required?

The plea ought to be accepted. Where the accused has joined the investigation as and when called upon to do so, and the Investigating Officer has stated in writing that no more custodial interrogation is required in the case, the Court is inclined to accept the appeal and direct release on bail in the event of arrest, on such terms and conditions as the Trial Court may impose.

2

Does the grant of anticipatory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 foreclose the State from seeking its cancellation?

No. The State remains at liberty to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail in case any of the conditions imposed by the Trial Court are violated or breached by the accused.

3

What did the Supreme Court finally decide in this appeal?

The appeal was allowed. It was directed that in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR, the appellant shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed or deemed fit by the Trial Court, with liberty to the State to seek cancellation on breach.

Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

🔖Save judgments into folders you actually use
📚A daily feed curated to your practice areas
🔥A reading streak, and your place on the Bar leaderboard
Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Acts & Sections
Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860s.306 Indian Penal Code, 1860
Full judgment
1.

Leave granted.

2.

The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.04.2023, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRM-M-No. 17439 of 2023, whereby the High Court had rejected the said petition filed by the present appellant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the case FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023, registered at Police Station-Gharinda, District-Amritsar for the offence punishable under Section-306 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

4.

It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Punjab that pursuant to the Order passed by this Court on 21.10.2024, the appellant has joined the investigation as and when called upon to do so and that she has received a letter from the Investigating Officer stating therein that no more custodial interrogation of the appellant is required in the case.

5.

In view of the above, we are inclined to accept the present appeal.

6.

Hence, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, in connection with the case FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023, registered at Police Station-Gharinda, District-Amritsar, she shall be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed or deem fit by the Trial Court.

7.

It goes without saying that the responden-State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail in case any of the conditions, that may be imposed by the Trial Court, are violated or breached by the appellant.

8.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

9.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed. .......…..............J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) .........................J. (PRASANNA B. VARALE) New Delhi 09th January, 2025 3 ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.11 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14647/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-04-2023 in CRM-M No. 17439/2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh] MAMTA KAUR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB Respondent(s) (IA No. 235648/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 09-01-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Adv. (through VC) Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment. 2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed. (NISHA KHULBEY) (MAMTA RAWAT) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH) (signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) *physical appearance not given

What the Court decided this week

Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when limitation is a mixed question?

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024 · Supreme Court of India

Must stray dogs removed from schools and hospitals be released back to the same location?

2025 INSC 1357 · Supreme Court of India

Are the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 binding on a State Government issuing an aggregator licence?

2023 INSC 102 · Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.

A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.

Start reading free
Source: Supreme Court of India. Reproduced for open access to public legal records, as issued — we add no masking of our own.
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy