A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab and Another examines the scope and discretionary contours of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the context of a prosecution revived after an extraordinary lapse of time. The case arises from allegations relating to the illegal abduction, custodial torture, and alleged murder of Balwant Singh Multani in the year 1991. Nearly twenty-nine years later, an FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased, invoking serious penal provisions including Sections 364, 201, 344, 219, 120-B, and subsequently Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant, a former Director General of Police, Punjab, sought anticipatory bail contending that the FIR was a second FIR on identical facts, that the delay was unexplained and fatal, and that the addition of Section 302 IPC was founded solely on statements of approvers recorded decades later. The State and the informant opposed the plea, asserting the gravity of allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation.

The Supreme Court, while consciously refraining from adjudicating the legality or maintainability of the FIR, focused on the limited question of entitlement to anticipatory bail. The Court emphasised the significance of prolonged delay, prior quashing proceedings in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, the appellant’s status as a retired senior police officer, and the procedural history relating to the belated addition of the murder charge.

Ultimately, the Court held that the cumulative circumstances justified the grant of anticipatory bail, clarifying that such protection would not prejudice pending proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR. The decision reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail serves as a shield against arbitrary arrest, even in serious offences, when the factual matrix discloses exceptional features warranting judicial protection.

Keywords: Anticipatory Bail, Delay in FIR, Second FIR, Section 438 Cr.P.C., Custodial Death, Approver Evidence

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment emerges against a complex historical and political background rooted in counter-insurgency operations in Punjab during the early 1990s. The allegations pertain to the purported illegal detention and custodial killing of Balwant Singh Multani in 1991, allegedly orchestrated by senior police officials. Earlier criminal proceedings concerning the same incident had culminated in quashing by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, wherein liberty was reserved to the father of the deceased to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible in law.

Despite such liberty, no action was taken during the father’s lifetime, and he passed away in 2014. The present proceedings were initiated only in 2020 by the brother of the deceased, marking a hiatus of nearly three decades from the alleged incident. The FIR initially did not include the offence of murder. The addition of Section 302 IPC occurred subsequently, premised entirely on statements of co-accused who were granted pardon and treated as approvers under Section 306 Cr.P.C.

The appellant, having retired as Director General of Police after three decades of service, sought anticipatory bail contending that arrest at such a belated stage would be punitive and unjust. The High Court declined relief, prompting the present appeal.

The Supreme Court consciously narrowed the scope of adjudication. It refrained from examining the legality of the FIR, jurisdictional objections, or allegations of political vendetta, noting that such issues were already pending in quashing proceedings. The Court confined itself to assessing whether the extraordinary delay, procedural developments, and overall factual circumstances warranted protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The factual matrix originates from an allegation that in 1991, Balwant Singh Multani was illegally abducted from his residence in Mohali by a police team acting under the instructions of the appellant. It was alleged that he was subjected to severe custodial torture and subsequently killed. A fabricated FIR of 1991 was allegedly registered to project an escape from custody.

For decades, no criminal proceedings survived judicial scrutiny. In 2011, the Supreme Court quashed earlier proceedings in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, while reserving limited liberty to the father of the deceased. No fresh action followed during his lifetime.

In May 2020, the brother of the deceased lodged FIR No. 77 of 2020 at Police Station City Mataur, Mohali. The FIR initially invoked offences under Sections 364, 201, 344, 219 and 120-B IPC. The appellant was granted anticipatory bail for these offences.

Subsequently, two co-accused were granted pardon and their statements implicated the appellant. Based solely on these statements, Section 302 IPC was added by a Magistrate in August 2020. The appellant’s anticipatory bail application for the murder charge was rejected by the Sessions Court and the High Court, leading to the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether an accused is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. when the FIR is lodged after an unexplained delay of twenty-nine years?
ii. Whether the subsequent addition of Section 302 IPC based solely on approver statements justifies denial of anticipatory bail?
iii. Whether prior quashing of proceedings on identical facts is a relevant consideration at the stage of anticipatory bail?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the FIR was malafide, politically motivated, and amounted to a second FIR on the same cause of action. It was argued that the unexplained delay of twenty-nine years vitiated the prosecution at its inception.

Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar to contend that identical allegations had already failed judicial scrutiny. It was emphasised that liberty to initiate fresh proceedings was personal to the father of the deceased and was never exercised.

The appellant contended that the addition of Section 302 IPC was procedurally flawed and based exclusively on statements of approvers, obtained under pressure. The appellant expressed willingness to cooperate with investigation and asserted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent State submitted that the allegations disclosed grave offences involving custodial death. It was argued that delay alone cannot defeat prosecution, particularly where abuse of official power is alleged.

The informant asserted that the FIR was not a second FIR but a fresh exercise of liberty reserved by the Supreme Court. The State contended that approver statements constituted prima facie material justifying addition of Section 302 IPC and custodial interrogation.

It was further argued that the appellant’s influence could result in tampering with evidence if anticipatory bail were granted.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail. The Court limited its inquiry strictly to the entitlement under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The Court held that while delay is not always fatal, a delay of twenty-nine years without any intervening steps is a relevant and weighty consideration for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the liberty reserved earlier was conditional and never exercised by the person in whose favour it was granted.

The Court further observed that the offence under Section 302 IPC was not part of the original FIR and was added decades later based solely on approver statements. The appellant’s retirement, long service, and absence of immediate custodial necessity were considered material factors.

The Court clarified that granting anticipatory bail would not affect pending proceedings seeking quashing of the FIR.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio rests on the principle that anticipatory bail is a protective remedy against arbitrary arrest. Exceptional delay, prior judicial history, and procedural developments may cumulatively justify such protection even in serious offences.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that permissibility of fresh proceedings pursuant to earlier liberty remains open and must be adjudicated independently in quashing proceedings.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Extraordinary delay can be a decisive factor in anticipatory bail.
ii. Subsequent addition of graver offences must be scrutinised contextually.
iii. Anticipatory bail does not pre-empt investigation or quashing proceedings.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces judicial restraint and balance in bail jurisprudence. It underscores that liberty under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not eclipsed merely due to the seriousness of allegations. The Court’s approach preserves the presumption of innocence while safeguarding investigative autonomy. The decision serves as a vital precedent on delayed prosecutions, approver-based accusations, and the nuanced exercise of discretionary bail powers.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, [2011] 15 SCR 540
ii. Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 (9) SCALE 120
iii. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973