Supreme Court Criticises High Court For Asking Why Accused Was Not Arrested Instead Of Deciding Anticipatory Bail Plea
Amisha Shrivastava
5 Sept 2025 12:12 PM IST
The Supreme Court yesterday granted anticipatory bail to a man facing corruption charges while criticising the Punjab and Haryana High Court for passing a “cryptic and unusual” order in the matter.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta criticised the High Court for seeking an explanation from the police for not arresting the man, instead of treating the non-arrest as a factor supporting the anticipatory bail plea.
“we do not approve the manner in which the High Court has dealt with the plea of the anticipatory bail. Either the High Court should have allowed the application granting anticipatory bail or should have declined it on its own merits”, the Court observed.
The Court added, “One another aspect of the matter we need to highlight is that while considering the plea for anticipatory bail why should the High Court ask a question to the investigating agency as to why the accused had not been arrested for the last four years. The fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years by itself was a good ground for the High Court to exercise its discretion and order grant of anticipatory bail.”
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking protection against arrest in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the IPC.
Instead of deciding the case on merits, the High Court directed the Director General of Police, Punjab, to file an affidavit explaining why a chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC had not been filed against the arrested accused and why the petitioner had not been arrested for the last four years. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court in the present SLP.
The Supreme Court questioned why the petitioner sought anticipatory bail in 2025 in relation to an FIR from 2021.
The petitioner explained that he was earlier led to believe that no case existed against him, and though initially suspended from service, his suspension was revoked and he was reinstated on September 27, 2023.
He claimed he feared arrest only after receiving a communication from the Deputy Commissioner directing him to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of the Economic Offence Branch.
The Supreme Court disapproved of the manner in which the High Court dealt with the anticipatory bail plea. It observed that the High Court should either have granted or refused bail on merits, instead of issuing directions to the police.
The Court noted that the High Court had already granted anticipatory bail to a co-accused alleged to have actually accepted the bribe.
The bench further remarked that the fact that the petitioner had not been arrested for four years was itself a strong ground for exercising discretion in his favour.
Ultimately, even though the case was pending before the High Court, the Supreme Court decided it finally, and ordered that if arrested, the petitioner be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Investigating Officer.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11234/2025
Case Title – Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 873