A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Mamta Kaur v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, 9 Jan. 2025) addresses the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to an FIR registered for an offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court had earlier rejected the appellant’s anticipatory bail application; on appeal the Supreme Court entertained the matter, noted compliance with an earlier interim direction (joined investigation), and recorded the State’s concession that no further custodial interrogation was required.

In light of these factual developments the Court allowed the appeal and directed that, if arrested in relation to FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023 (P.S. Gharinda, District Amritsar), the appellant be released on bail subject to such terms as the trial court may impose, with liberty to the State to move for cancellation if conditions are breached. The decision proceeds on narrow grounds of changed circumstances participation in investigation and absence of necessity for further custody rather than laying down wide principles on anticipatory bail or the scope of Section 306 IPC.

The operative order balances liberty against investigational needs and leaves supervisory and conditional details to the trial court.

Keywords: anticipatory bail, Section 438 CrPC, Section 306 IPC, custodial interrogation, trial court conditions

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from a rejected petition for anticipatory bail filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in respect of FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023 at Police Station Gharinda, Amritsar, registered for an allegation attracting Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application by its order dated 17.04.2023. The appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking relief under Section 438 CrPC. During the Supreme Court proceedings an interim order was passed on 21.10.2024 directing cooperation with investigation.

The record shows that subsequent to that interim order the appellant complied with the process, joining investigation as called and receiving a communication from the Investigating Officer confirming that no further custodial interrogation was required. The State explicitly placed that fact before the Court. The Supreme Court therefore heard the appeal against a changed backdrop the investigatory need for custody having been conceded as unnecessary by the prosecution. The appeal was allowed on these grounds and a conditional direction for release on bail was issued, while preserving the State’s right to move for cancellation in case of breach of conditions. The order is narrowly framed relief follows from changed facts rather than from an expansive re-interpretation of anticipatory bail jurisprudence and defers finer regulation of bail conditions to the trial court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The FIR in question is FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023 lodged at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar, alleging conduct falling under Section 306 IPC. The appellant initially applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court; that petition was dismissed on 17.04.2023. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2025 in the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal. While the appeal was pending the Supreme Court passed an interim order on 21.10.2024 directing the appellant to cooperate with investigation and to join whenever required. The appellant complied with that interim direction and attended investigational requisitions.

The Investigating Officer communicated in writing that no custodial interrogation of the appellant was required. At the hearing before the Supreme Court the respondent-State’s counsel fairly submitted this position that the appellant had joined investigation and that custody was unnecessary. Thereafter the Supreme Court accepted the changed factual matrix and allowed the appeal, directing that if arrested in relation to the stated FIR the appellant shall be released on bail, unless wanted in another case, on terms to be fixed by the trial court. The State was left free to seek cancellation if bail terms were contravened. No further investigative or factual findings are recorded in the Supreme Court’s brief order.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in respect of FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023 alleging an offence under Section 306 IPC?
ii. Whether compliance with an interim direction to join investigation and the prosecution’s statement that custodial interrogation is no longer required constitute sufficient grounds for grant of anticipatory bail?
iii. What is the appropriate scope and form of directions the Supreme Court should issue when changed circumstances reduce the prosecution’s claim for custodial interrogation?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsel for the appellant asserted that the appellant cooperated with the investigation in accordance with the Supreme Court’s interim direction and was not in need of custodial interrogation; therefore liberty should not be curtailed by refusal of anticipatory bail.
ii. It was urged that continued threat of arrest, when investigative necessity has evaporated and the accused has joined the probe, would be punitive and disproportionate.
iii. The appellant relied on the limited nature of the present proceedings and sought directions for conditional release leaving the trial court to frame precise safeguards — thereby balancing the State’s investigational interest and the appellant’s right to personal liberty.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsel for the respondent-State placed on record that after the Supreme Court’s interim order the appellant joined the investigation and the Investigating Officer conveyed that further custodial interrogation was not required.
ii. The State therefore did not press for continued custody and accepted that bail could be considered by the Court on appropriate terms.
iii. The State reserved the right to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant violated any conditions that a trial court might impose.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — anticipatory bail: power of High Court and Court of Session to grant bail in anticipation of arrest.
ii. Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — abetment of suicide; penal consequences and serious nature of the offence.
iii. Constitutional protection under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) — relevant in assessing custodial necessity and proportionality.

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Its reasoning is succinct and fact-sensitive. The Court recorded that pursuant to its interim order dated 21.10.2024, the appellant had complied with the investigational process and the Investigating Officer had reported that no custodial interrogation was necessary. Based on the prosecution’s concession and the changed circumstances namely the appellant’s cooperation and absence of need for custody the Court found it appropriate to grant relief. The operative direction is conditional and narrow: if the appellant is arrested in connection with the FIR of 14.02.2023, she shall be released on bail, unless required in another case, on such terms as the trial court considers fit.

The Court explicitly preserved the State’s right to move for cancellation of bail should the appellant breach any conditions laid down by the trial court. The order demonstrates judicial caution: it does not convert the appeal into a final adjudication on guilt or innocence, and it leaves the exact character of bail conditions to the trial court, which is better placed to supervise compliance and impose specific safeguards such as sureties, reporting directions or travel restrictions. The brevity of the judgment underscores reliance upon changed facts rather than a doctrinal shift in anticipatory bail jurisprudence.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The core ratio is that where the accused has joined the investigation pursuant to a court direction and the prosecution formally concedes that custodial interrogation is no longer necessary, the court may grant anticipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions. The decision rests on two linked propositions:

(i) anticipatory bail is an extraordinary protective remedy whose exercise depends upon the balance between liberty and investigational necessity;

(ii) demonstrable cooperation and the absence of need for further custody materially alter that balance in favour of liberty.

Therefore, the Court held that the changed facts justified release on bail, while preserving procedural safeguards by reference to trial court-determined conditions and by permitting the State to seek cancellation on proof of breach. This ratio is narrowly fact-dependent and preserves the investigatory prerogative of the State.

b. OBITER DICTA 

Although the order is concise and does not elaborate extensive dicta, the following observations are implicit and serve as obiter: courts should be guided by the prosecution’s bona fide assessment of the need for custody; compliance with court directions to join investigation is a weighty circumstance in bail decisions; and the supervisory role of the trial court in framing and enforcing conditions is essential. The judgment suggests judicial preference for tailored, fact-sensitive orders rather than broad formulaic rules a practical emphasis that lower courts should respect when balancing liberty against investigation. These observations, while not framed as binding propositions, indicate judicial concern for proportionality and procedural fairness in anticipatory bail contexts.

c. GUIDELINES

i. When the accused complies with interim investigational directions, courts should treat cooperation as a relevant factor favouring bail.
ii. A prosecution concession that custodial interrogation is unnecessary is material and should be given due weight.
iii. Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances should be conditional, with the trial court empowered to prescribe appropriate terms (sureties, reporting, travel, non-contact conditions).
iv. The State must be left with an effective remedy — power to move for cancellation if conditions are breached — to protect investigational integrity.
v. Courts should avoid issuing final findings on guilt at the anticipatory bail stage; the focus must remain on custodial necessity and liberty balance.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s order in Mamta Kaur v. State of Punjab exemplifies measured judicial intervention: liberty-oriented relief granted on the narrow basis of demonstrable cooperation and the prosecution’s concession that custody was unnecessary. The decision preserves prosecutorial safeguards by leaving bail conditions to the trial court and by allowing cancellation applications. Practically, the order signals to investigating agencies that once the accused complies with investigational requirements and custody is not necessary, continued denial of liberty will be difficult to sustain.

For trial courts the judgment underscores the importance of framing precise, enforceable conditions when releasing an accused in serious cases such as those under Section 306 IPC. The ruling neither dilutes the seriousness of offences attracting Section 306 nor grants blanket immunity; rather it confirms that anticipatory bail remains a discretionary, fact-sensitive remedy where liberty is to be balanced with investigational needs.

Legal practitioners will find the case a useful precedent for applications predicated on changed factual matrices and prosecution concessions, while prosecutors are reminded to record and communicate their custodial requirements clearly so courts can adjudicate bail petitions sensibly.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Mamta Kaur v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, Jan. 9, 2025) — [2025] 1 S.C.R. 649 : 2025 INSC 49.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438).
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 306).