Anticipatory Bail under BNSS for Attempt-to-Murder Allegations: P&H High Court prioritizes apology, absence of gunfire, and completed recovery in ASI Dilbag Singh v. UT Chandigarh

Anticipatory Bail under BNSS for Attempt-to-Murder Allegations: P&H High Court prioritizes apology, absence of gunfire, and completed recovery in ASI Dilbag Singh v. UT Chandigarh

Court: High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh

Case: CRM-M-46352-2025 (O&M)

Title: ASI Dilbag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh

Date of Decision: 22 August 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. S. Shekhawat

Statutes Involved: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 482; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Section 109(1)


Introduction

This order addresses a significant early application of anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in the backdrop of grave allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) relating to attempt to murder (Section 109(1)). The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) serving as a Personal Security Officer (PSO) to a High Court Judge, sought pre-arrest protection following FIR No. 68 dated 06.08.2025 registered at Police Station North, Chandigarh. The complaint alleges that during an inquiry into the PSOs’ duty interchange, the petitioner pointed his official pistol at the Chief Court Officer, attempted to fire, and later assaulted him en route to a police post inside the High Court premises.

The core issues were:

  • Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS could be granted in a case alleging attempt to murder under Section 109(1) BNS, particularly against a serving police officer attached to judicial security.
  • How factors such as non-discharge of the firearm, completeness of issued ammunition, prior recovery of the service weapon, and the petitioner’s unconditional apology affect the exercise of judicial discretion in bail.
  • What conditions should accompany such relief to protect the complainant and preserve the integrity of the investigation.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 482 BNSS, subject to the statutory conditions under Section 482(2). The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations—particularly the institutional sensitivity given the location and the petitioner’s status as a member of a disciplined force—but took a “lenient view” because:

  • The petitioner tendered an unconditional apology in Court, expressed remorse, and undertook not to approach or harm the complainant or his family, which was also formalized by affidavit.
  • The weapon and all 10 rounds of ammunition had already been recovered; no shot was actually fired; and the complainant’s injuries were not dangerous to life.

The Court permitted the Investigating Officer (IO) to require the petitioner’s participation in the investigation by issuing a written notice and directed adherence to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions.


Factual Matrix

According to the complaint by the Chief Court Officer, after concerns were raised by the office of a Sitting Judge regarding PSO duty interchanges executed without authorization, the petitioner (PSO Dilbag Singh) allegedly:

  • Argued angrily when called for inquiry;
  • Drew his official pistol, pointed it at the complainant, and attempted to fire (no discharge occurred);
  • Was overpowered by branch staff; the incident was captured on mobile phones and CCTV;
  • Assaulted the complainant with punches near the police post, causing some injuries.

Defense submissions emphasized that the service pistol and all 10 rounds were recovered intact (suggesting no firing attempt materialized), that only simple injuries were alleged, and that the charge under BNS Section 109(1) (attempt to murder) was misapplied. The State opposed bail, stressing the gravity and institutional context, asserting an attempt to open fire was thwarted by others’ intervention.


Legal Framework

Section 482 BNSS: Anticipatory Bail

  • Section 482 BNSS is the successor to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). It empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail in anticipation of arrest.
  • Section 482(2) BNSS sets standard conditions frequently imposed with anticipatory bail, which typically include:
    • Cooperation with investigation, including availability for interrogation;
    • Non-inducement or non-threat to witnesses;
    • Restrictions on leaving India without permission;
    • Compliance with any additional case-specific conditions to ensure fair investigation and trial.
  • Key transition note: Under the old CrPC, “Section 482” referred to the High Court’s inherent powers. Under BNSS, the numbering has changed—Section 482 now corresponds to anticipatory bail (CrPC 438 equivalent). This case exemplifies the new numbering in practice.

Section 109(1) BNS: Attempt to Murder

  • Section 109 BNS is the successor to Section 307 of the IPC. Sub-section (1) generally addresses attempt to murder where the act does not cause hurt; sub-section (2) enhances punishment where hurt is caused.
  • Essential elements typically include:
    • Intention or knowledge to cause death (mens rea), and
    • An overt act towards commission of murder, beyond mere preparation (actus reus).
  • Pointing a firearm and attempting to discharge it may amount to an “attempt,” even if the shot does not go off, subject to proof of intent and act.

The Court’s Legal Reasoning

While the order is concise and does not traverse precedent at length, its reasoning reflects established bail principles:

  • Gravity recognized but not determinative at bail stage: The Court underscored the seriousness of an alleged firearm threat within the High Court and the higher responsibility of a disciplined force member. However, bail adjudication focuses primarily on whether custody is necessary for investigation, likelihood of absconding or tampering, and the proportionality of pre-trial incarceration, not on a conclusive determination of guilt.
  • Mitigating facts favoring pre-arrest protection:
    • No actual gunfire occurred; the ammunition was recovered intact.
    • Injuries reported were not dangerous to life.
    • The service weapon and ammunition had already been recovered; custodial interrogation for recovery was unnecessary.
  • Restorative posture and undertakings: The petitioner’s in-court, unconditional apology and sworn undertaking not to approach or harm the complainant were pivotal. They reduced perceived risks of intimidation or escalation and enabled the Court to prefer a supervisory, conditional liberty approach over arrest.
  • Structured safeguards: The Court tailored relief with statutory guardrails under Section 482(2) BNSS and required that the IO summon the petitioner for investigation through a written notice, ensuring transparency and procedural regularity.

Precedential Landscape and Doctrinal Consistency

The order does not cite authorities, but it resonates with the Supreme Court’s anticipatory bail jurisprudence, now read into BNSS Section 482:

  • Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980): Laid the foundation for anticipatory bail as a safeguard of personal liberty, rejecting rigid formulas and emphasizing case-by-case discretion. The present order’s individualized balancing of gravity against mitigating factors aligns with this approach.
  • Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011): Stressed that custodial interrogation should be justified by concrete reasons; if recovery is complete and the accused is cooperative, pre-arrest bail can be appropriate. Here, the recovery of the pistol and ammunition, and the undertaking to cooperate, are congruent.
  • Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020): Clarified that anticipatory bail need not be time-bound by default and highlighted that its grant must rest on an evaluation of risks of misuse of liberty versus the need for custody. The Court’s reliance on undertakings and Section 482(2) conditions reflects this equilibrium.
  • Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): Emphasized the need to avoid unnecessary arrests and encouraged summons/notice mechanisms (akin to the practice of written notices to join investigation). The Court’s directive for written notice mirrors this ethos within the BNSS framework.
  • Balchand v. State of Rajasthan (1977): The “bail, not jail” dictum informs the liberal orientation toward liberty, subject to sensible safeguards—especially where the prosecution’s investigative interests are not compromised.

Collectively, these principles justify pre-arrest bail in serious-offence FIRs where (i) custody is not essential to the investigation, (ii) the accused is unlikely to abscond or tamper, and (iii) robust conditions can adequately protect the investigation and the complainant.


Impact and Implications

1) Early BNSS Application and Renumbering Clarity

  • This decision is instructive for transitioning practitioners: “Section 482” is now anticipatory bail under BNSS (CrPC 438 equivalent), not inherent powers (which were Section 482 under CrPC). The order normalizes the BNSS numbering in practice and signals continuity of anticipatory bail doctrines developed under the CrPC regime.

2) Anticipatory Bail Even in Attempt-to-Murder FIRs

  • Courts will still consider anticipatory bail for allegations under BNS Section 109(1) where:
    • No firearm discharge or grievous/dangerous injuries are shown;
    • Recovery is complete, obviating the need for custodial interrogation;
    • There is demonstrable remorse and an enforceable undertaking to protect the complainant and the process.
  • This does not dilute the gravity of such offences but emphasizes individualized, risk-based assessments over a categorical bar.

3) Police Personnel and “Disciplined Force” Considerations

  • While the Court condemned the alleged misconduct—especially within the High Court precincts—it stopped short of using that factor alone to deny liberty. For law enforcement accused, the case highlights that:
    • Institutional discipline heightens expectations and potential consequences, but
    • Bail decisions still pivot on investigation needs, risk of misuse of liberty, and proportionality.
  • Disciplinary or administrative action is a separate track; anticipatory bail does not pre-empt service-law consequences.

4) Procedural Safeguards: Written Notice to Join Investigation

  • The direction that the IO may summon the petitioner via a written notice fortifies due process and transparent cooperation. It tangentially harmonizes with BNSS norms encouraging summons-based investigation for cooperative accused, minimizing unnecessary arrest and custodial exposure.

5) Evidentiary Nuances at Bail Stage

  • Arguments like “full magazine intact, no spent cartridge” and “CCTV will reveal the sequence” are relevant to bail insofar as they show the prosecution’s case is contested and that immediate custody is not indispensable. However, they do not pre-judge trial issues; they only moderate the necessity for pre-trial incarceration.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Anticipatory Bail (BNSS Section 482): Court protection sought before arrest, ensuring conditional liberty during investigation, provided the accused cooperates and does not misuse freedom.
  • BNS Section 109(1) (Attempt to Murder): Punishes attempts to cause death with requisite intent/knowledge. Even without injury or discharge, an overt act (like pulling a trigger) may qualify, subject to proof.
  • “Disciplined Force”: Personnel like police are held to higher behavioral standards, particularly while on duty or carrying service weapons. Misconduct can entail separate departmental action irrespective of criminal proceedings.
  • Conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS: Standard conditions often include cooperation with police; no intimidation or inducement to witnesses; restrictions on travel; and any case-specific mandates (e.g., not contacting the complainant).
  • Written Notice to Join Investigation: A formal call by the IO to appear and assist in investigation. It creates a record, reduces arbitrariness, and supports non-custodial investigation where appropriate.
  • Bail vs. Acquittal: Bail is not a pronouncement on guilt or innocence. It is a provisional measure to balance personal liberty and investigatory interests pending trial.

Practice Pointers

  • For defense counsel: In serious-offence FIRs, highlight absence of actual harm (e.g., no discharge), completed recoveries, cooperation, and offer enforceable undertakings (non-contact, attendance, etc.). An apology, while not an admission, can attenuate perceived risks.
  • For prosecution/IO: Document any immediate need for custodial interrogation (e.g., unrecovered weapon, need to trace accomplices). Use written notices to ensure transparent, documented compliance when custody is not imperative.
  • For institutions employing disciplined forces: Parallel disciplinary proceedings can—and should—run on their own track. Bail orders neither determine nor constrain departmental accountability.

Conclusion

This decision reaffirms that under BNSS, anticipatory bail remains an agile tool to safeguard personal liberty—even for grave allegations like attempt to murder—where custody is not essential to the investigation, recovery stands complete, and meaningful safeguards can contain risk. The Court’s emphasis on the petitioner’s unconditional apology and undertaking, together with the requirement of a written notice to join investigation, reflects a calibrated approach that preserves both institutional integrity and constitutional liberty.

Key takeaways:

  • BNSS renumbering: Section 482 now governs anticipatory bail (CrPC 438 equivalent).
  • Serious charges (BNS 109(1)) do not create an automatic bar to anticipatory bail; courts will conduct a nuanced, risk-based assessment.
  • Absence of gunfire, simple injuries, and completed recovery were decisive mitigating factors.
  • Undertakings and apologies can meaningfully influence bail discretion, though they do not resolve culpability.
  • Due-process safeguards (written notice to join investigation; adherence to Section 482(2) conditions) are critical to balancing liberty with investigative needs.

In the broader legal landscape, ASI Dilbag Singh v. UT Chandigarh illustrates continuity of India’s anticipatory bail jurisprudence under the BNSS regime and underscores the judiciary’s preference for conditional liberty over pre-trial detention where the interests of justice can be adequately protected.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Judge(s)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S Shekhawat

Advocates

Comments