Punjab Excise FIR: Punjab and Haryana HC Sets Aside Sessions Court Order Withdrawing Interim Anticipatory Bail, Holds Custodial Interrogation Cannot Be Used to Extract Information by Coercion

Justice Sanjay Vashisth exercised revisional jurisdiction to restore anticipatory bail to Karam Singh after the Sessions Court withdrew interim protection solely on the investigating officer's plea for custodial interrogation, without examining whether such interrogation was genuinely necessary.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, sitting at Chandigarh, has set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, that withdrew interim anticipatory bail granted to Karam Singh in a case registered under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, sitting singly, held that once recovery had already been effected and the accused had duly joined the investigation, the investigating agency's bare plea for custodial interrogation — to trace persons allegedly involved in the supply or procurement chain — could not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for cancelling discretionary relief. The Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and made the earlier interim anticipatory bail absolute.

The FIR and the Sessions Court Proceedings

FIR No. 61, dated 3 May 2026, was registered against Karam Singh at Police Station Phool, District Bathinda, under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. Karam Singh approached the Court of Sessions, Bathinda, for anticipatory bail. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, by a detailed order dated 15 May 2026, granted him interim anticipatory bail and directed him to join the investigation.

In that order, the Sessions Court specifically recorded that the facts regarding ownership and possession of the house in question needed investigation to establish link evidence, but that custodial interrogation of the applicant was not indispensable. The purpose of furthering the investigation, the Sessions Court found, could be achieved by directing the applicant to join and cooperate.

Karam Singh joined the investigation on 19 May 2026. On 30 May 2026, the statement of ASI Avtar Singh was recorded before the Sessions Court. The ASI acknowledged that the petitioner had joined the investigation and that recovery had already been effected — 400 litres of lahan and 10 litres of illicit liquor. The ASI nonetheless stated that custodial interrogation was required to ascertain the whereabouts of persons from whom the instruments for working a still had allegedly been procured, and to whom the illicit liquor was intended to be sold.

On that submission alone, the Additional Sessions Judge withdrew the interim protection and dismissed the anticipatory bail application on 30 May 2026. The High Court noted that this was done “without undertaking any substantive examination as to whether custodial interrogation was genuinely necessary.”

The Procedural Question: Anticipatory Bail Petition or Revision?

Karam Singh then filed CRM-M-32933-2026 before the High Court, framed as an anticipatory bail petition. Justice Vashisth identified a threshold procedural issue: to assail the order dated 30 May 2026, the correct route was to invoke the High Court's revisional jurisdiction, not to file a fresh anticipatory bail petition. Without exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court observed, the findings and observations recorded by the Sessions Court in the impugned order could not be examined thoroughly for the purpose of reversing, altering, or modifying them.

The State, represented by learned DAG Punjab, Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, supported this position. He submitted that for examining the legality, correctness, or propriety of any order passed by a subordinate court, revisional jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked, and that such power can also be exercised suo motu.

Justice Vashisth reproduced Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 401 CrPC, 1973), which empowers the High Court, upon calling for the record of any proceeding or when such proceeding otherwise comes to its knowledge, to exercise appellate powers or the powers of a Court of Session. The provision also bars the High Court from making any order to the prejudice of the accused without an opportunity of hearing, and bars revision at the instance of a party who could have appealed but did not.

Having identified the correct jurisdictional basis, the Court proceeded to treat the matter as one calling for exercise of revisional jurisdiction and examined the record of both the 15 May 2026 and 30 May 2026 orders.

Why the Sessions Court's Withdrawal Order Did Not Survive Scrutiny

Justice Vashisth found the withdrawal order of 30 May 2026 unsustainable on two distinct grounds.

First, the recovery of 400 litres of lahan and 10 litres of illicit liquor had already been effected before the Sessions Court passed the withdrawal order. The inability of the investigating agency to ascertain the identities of persons to whom the lahan or illicit liquor was to be supplied, or from whom the apparatus used for its preparation had been procured, could not constitute a valid ground for withdrawing discretionary relief that had already been granted — particularly when the petitioner had duly joined the investigation pursuant to the interim order.

Second, and more directly, the Court addressed the nature of custodial interrogation itself. Once recovery stood effected, a plea for custodial interrogation merely to elicit further information could not justify cancellation of interim anticipatory bail. The Court stated plainly that custodial interrogation cannot be permitted as a means to employ coercive methods for extracting information. The duty to conduct a fair and effective investigation rests on the investigating officer, who must utilise lawful means, professional expertise, and the assistance of other members of the investigating team to collect evidence and trace persons involved.

The Court also pointed to a significant omission in the Sessions Court's order: there was no allegation whatsoever that Karam Singh had misused the concession of interim bail, and no such finding or observation had been recorded in the order dated 30 May 2026. The withdrawal of protection thus rested entirely on the investigating officer's unexamined assertion.

Conditions Imposed Going Forward

While making the interim anticipatory bail absolute, Justice Vashisth directed that Karam Singh shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so, and shall abide by all the terms and conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. The conditions already imposed in the order dated 15 May 2026 were retained.

Outcome

The concluding part of the order dated 30 May 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda — whereby the interim protection granted to Karam Singh was withdrawn — was set aside as unsustainable in law. As a consequence, the interim anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court on 15 May 2026 was made absolute. The anticipatory bail application filed before the Sessions Court stands allowed. CRM-M-32933-2026 was disposed of accordingly on 4 June 2026.