Blanket Bail Can’t Be a Charter of Lawlessness: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to SAD Candidate’s Daughter on Mere Apprehension of Arrest

“An order of anticipatory bail should not be ‘blanket’… It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence” —  Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea filed under Section 482 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking anticipatory/blanket bail by Kanchanpreet Kaur, daughter of Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) candidate Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Randhawa, contesting the Tarn Taran bye-elections. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal refused to grant any pre-emptive protection from arrest or direction for advance notice of arrest, holding that such a request was speculative, legally impermissible, and contrary to constitutional principles.

The Court held that "pre-emptive blanket bail in the absence of a specific offence or FIR amounts to unwarranted interference in lawful police investigation",and reiterated the settled position of law that anticipatory bail cannot be converted into a license against future legal process.

“No FIR, No Specific Allegation, No Bail”: Court Rejects Political Vendetta Argument as Speculative

The petitioner, Kanchanpreet Kaur, claimed a looming threat of arrest by the Punjab Police allegedly orchestrated to sabotage her mother’s election campaign scheduled for 11 November 2025. She pleaded for blanket anticipatory bail or in the alternative, a direction to grant seven days’ prior notice before any arrest to avail legal remedies.

The petition invoked alleged political vendetta, asserting that officials were conducting raids at her residence to intimidate voters and suppress her mother’s campaign. However, the State, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Jastej Singh, strongly opposed the plea, terming it a “publicity stunt filed a day before polling to gain electoral mileage”.

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal rejected the plea, categorically observing:

“Directing the respondent to serve seven days’ prior notice before arrest would virtually amount to granting a blanket protection from arrest in the guise of anticipatory bail which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

“Anticipatory Bail Must Not Be Granted in a Legal Vacuum”: Reiterating Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Principles

Citing the landmark Constitution Bench ruling in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565], the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail must be granted based on clear and specific apprehensions, not on vague, anticipatory grounds.

Quoting the Supreme Court in Sibbia, the Court noted:

“A blanket order of anticipatory bail… regardless of what kind of offence is alleged to have been committed… will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if he commits, say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can become a charter of lawlessness.”

Thus, anticipatory bail cannot be granted in the absence of any registered offence, and must be offence-specific and time-bound, not open-ended protection against future legal actions.

No Prior Notice Before Arrest in Non-Bailable Offences: Padam Narain Aggarwal Binding

On the alternate relief sought by the petitioner — advance notice before arrest — the Court rejected the request, relying on Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [(2008) 13 SCC 305], where the Supreme Court had held that:

“An order requiring the investigating agency to issue advance notice before arrest obstructs and curtails the authority of law enforcement and is not warranted by law.”

Thus, such a direction was held to be an impermissible judicial overreach, effectively hampering the police’s statutory power of investigation and arrest.

Identity Concealment, Political Timing, and Lack of Factual Basis Weakened Petitioner’s Case

Significantly, the State also pointed out that the petitioner’s husband, Amritpal Singh Baath, is a dreaded gangster currently residing in Canada with multiple FIRs registered against him. The Court noted that the petitioner concealed this information by identifying herself only as the daughter of the SAD candidate in the party memo, potentially undermining the bona fides of the plea.

Further, the Court remarked that canvassing had already ended per Election Commission norms, and filing such a petition a day before polling lacked credible urgency.

“No Bail in a Vacuum”: Dismissal Reinforces Judicial Reluctance to Entertain Political Pretexts Without Factual Grounds

In conclusion, the High Court emphasized that criminal courts cannot intervene in purely speculative apprehensions, especially in politically sensitive times, unless supported by actual registration of FIR or specific incriminating material.

The Court ruled: “The present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.”

This judgment is significant for reaffirming that judicial discretion in anticipatory bail matters must remain anchored in concrete facts, not pre-election political theatrics.

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025