1. Special leave petition seeking pre-arrest bail following rejection by the High Court — interim protection granted — cooperation with investigation. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1548
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL AND S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Aryan Goel – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Punjab – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1415 of 2025
Decided on : 05-05-2025
Important Points
Interim protection from arrest may be made absolute when the petitioner demonstrates active cooperation and participation in the investigation, provided such cooperation continues throughout the investigation and subsequent trial.
Subject
Criminal Law - Pre-Arrest Bail
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail which was denied by the High Court - Interim protection from arrest granted by this Court while entertaining special leave petition - Petitioner appeared before Investigating Officer, complying with directions - Court held that interim protection should be made absolute. (Paras 3-5)
(B) Cooperation with the investigation is a relevant factor in determining the granting of pre-arrest bail - Such cooperation can justify the continuance of interim protection from arrest in pending investigations. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The High Court rejected the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner was granted interim protection from arrest by the Supreme Court and was observed to be cooperating with the investigation.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to protection from arrest as long as they continue to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the interim protection from arrest should be made absolute based on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that continued cooperation with the investigation supports the maintenance of interim protection against arrest.
Result: Petition disposed of, with direction for no arrest, provided the petitioner cooperates with the investigation.
(B) Cooperation with the investigation is a relevant factor in determining the granting of pre-arrest bail - Such cooperation can justify the continuance of interim protection from arrest in pending investigations. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The High Court rejected the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner was granted interim protection from arrest by the Supreme Court and was observed to be cooperating with the investigation.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to protection from arrest as long as they continue to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the interim protection from arrest should be made absolute based on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that continued cooperation with the investigation supports the maintenance of interim protection against arrest.
Result: Petition disposed of, with direction for no arrest, provided the petitioner cooperates with the investigation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether interim protection from arrest should be made absolute based on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation. (Para 1 )
3. Cooperation and active participation of the petitioner in the investigation justify making the interim protection from arrest absolute. (Para 4 )
4. Interim protection from arrest may be made absolute where the accused demonstrates consistent cooperation and participation in the investigation. (Para 4 )
5. Special leave petition disposed of — interim protection from arrest made absolute subject to continued cooperation with investigation and trial. (Para 5 )
6. Under what circumstances can interim protection from arrest be made absolute?
Interim protection from arrest can be made absolute when the petitioner demonstrates active cooperation and participation in the investigation. (Para 4 )
7. What conditions may be imposed when making interim protection from arrest absolute?
The court may direct that the protection remains subject to the petitioner's continued cooperation and participation in the investigation and the subsequent trial. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The application seeking pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was rejected by the High Court.
3. This Court vide order dated 27.01.2025 while entertaining the present special leave petition has granted interim protection i.e., the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR No.0167 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024. In pursuance to the aforesaid order and the subsequent orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer on 28th April, 2025, as directed by this Court as also on the subsequent dates, which on verification are found to be true.
4. We are of the opinion that as the petitioner is cooperating and participating with the investigation, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025 deserves to be made absolute.
5. Accordingly, the present special leave petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No.0167 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024 registered with Police Station Division No.6, District-Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, provided the petitioner continues to cooperate and participate with the investigation as well as the subsequent trial.
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
