-
by sayum
11 August 2026 2:00 PM
“Two Years and No Charge — Then Why Custody?” - In a significant ruling addressing prolonged and inconclusive investigation, the Supreme Court of India granted anticipatory bail to Hardyal Inder Singh, an advocate accused of involvement in the alleged theft of a judicial file from a Ludhiana court. Despite the serious nature of allegations involving Sections 409, 380, 454, 427, 411, 201 and 120-B IPC, the Court found no justification for custodial interrogation — especially when the investigation had remained stalled for over two and a half years.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's denial of bail, observing: “Investigation against the appellant has remained incomplete for more than two and half years... His custodial interrogation is not warranted.”
“The FIR Doesn’t Name Him — Only Disclosure Statements Do”: Court Notes Delay and Weak Evidentiary Basis
The case stemmed from FIR No. 44/2022, registered on 28 February 2022, alleging that a judicial file was stolen from court premises, and was recovered from a salon owned by a co-accused. While the appellant’s name was not in the FIR, he surfaced later via disclosure statements of co-accused Deepak Dogra and Hassan.
“The stolen file had been delivered to the appellant via two co-accused… recovered from a salon owned by another co-accused.”
The police claimed that co-accused Hassan had stored the file on instructions from the appellant — who was merely a customer at the salon.
“Closure Report Was Filed — Then Rejected — But Still, No Final Charge Against Appellant”
The Court noted that after initial investigation, the police themselves filed a closure report on 19 May 2022, which was later rejected by the Magistrate on 4 July 2022, directing further investigation. Yet, despite this, no progress had been made against the appellant.
“Although challan has been filed against co-accused, investigation against the appellant is still in progress...”
More importantly, the appellant had joined investigation thrice, and even a computer monitor, allegedly stolen alongside the file, had since been recovered.
“A Lawyer Can’t Be Declared a Proclaimed Offender Without Proper Basis”: SC Sets Aside Magistrate’s Order
The Court also ruled on two connected appeals challenging orders passed by the Magistrate. One such order had declared the appellant a “proclaimed offender” under Section 174A IPC, which the Supreme Court quashed:
“We set aside the order dated 14th July, 2022 declaring the appellant to be a proclaimed offender... in view of our direction granting anticipatory bail.”
However, the Court refused to interfere with the Magistrate’s earlier decision to reject the closure report and direct further probe — a finding that does not, per se, imply guilt or justify arrest.
“Protection from Arrest Made Absolute — But Bar Council May Act If Misconduct Found”
The Court converted its earlier interim protection into a permanent one and directed that:
“In the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail by the trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by it.”
Yet, the Bench added a cautionary note, leaving the door open for future disciplinary action if needed:
“If in future the appellant is found prima facie involved in a similar offence… the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana may take appropriate steps, including suspension of licence.”
“Do Not Interfere With Investigation or Witnesses”: Conditions Made Clear
While granting protection, the Court made it clear that the appellant shall not misuse the liberty:
“The appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person from disclosing facts to police or court.”
And, most critically, the Court clarified that this bail order shall not be seen as a comment on the merits of the case:
“Observations made herein will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.”
Date of Decision: 8 April 2025
