Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Dr. Amit Kumar Singal – Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
CRM-31794-2025, CRM-30428-2025, CRM-M-42377-2025 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-08-2025
Key Points: - The High Court may entertain direct bail pleas in exceptional circumstances, even though Sessions Court is the preferred forum. (!) (!) - Section 439 Cr.P.C./Section 483 BNSS provides concurrent jurisdiction for bail before High Court and Sessions Court; ordinarily the Sessions Court should be approached first unless exceptional circumstances exist. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment discusses criteria and flexibility around "exceptional circumstances" and emphasizes case-by-case assessment rather than a fixed checklist. (!) (!) - It cites that direct approach to the High Court is warranted where delay, complexity, or co-accused circumstances justify bypassing the Sessions Court, as evidenced by the present case’s peculiar facts. (!) (!) - Prior judicial opinions from various courts articulate that concurrent jurisdiction exists and that a litigant generally should exhaust the lower forum, with exceptions. (!) (!) (!) - The decision reiterates the protective purpose of bail and the standard that regular bail should balance liberty with ensuring presence at trial. (!) (!) - The order ultimately allows bail with conditions, clarifying that entertainment of the petition is due to the peculiar factual matrix. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under bnss for bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against the bail petition. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of bail process and approach. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. statutory interpretation of bail provisions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. exceptional circumstances for direct high court bail. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 6. factual background leads to bail consideration. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 7. final decision on bail granted with conditions. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. conclusion and disposal of miscellaneous applications. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
SUMEET GOEL, J.
CRM-31794-2025
This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 for placing on record the reply filed on behalf of respondent-CBI.
Application is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Reply is taken on record. Registry to paginate the paper-book accordingly.
CRM-30428-2025
As the main petition has been allowed, no order is required to be passed in the instant application. CRM stands disposed of.
CRM-M-37123-2025
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNS S , 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.RC0052025A0011 dated 31.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (2) of , 2023 and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also Sections 7 -A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 308 (2) of , 2023 (added later on) at Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh.
2. The gravamen of the allegations, as set out in the FIR, is that the petitioner, in active collusion with co-accused Harsh Kotak is involved in an FIR/regular case registered by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61 (2) of BNSS , 2023. It is alleged that both the accused persons demanded illegal gratification of Rs.45.00 lacs for resolving issues pertaining to an income tax notice etc. issued to the complainant. Consequently, the instant FIR was registered on 31.05.2025. After registration of the FIR, a trap was laid by the CBI team on the same day i.e. 31.05.2025 during which trap co-accused Harsh Kotak was allegedly apprehended at the residence of accused Amit Kumar Singal (petitioner herein) while accepting bribe of Rs.25.00 lacs on behalf of accused- petitioner Amit Kumar Singal from the complainant and recovery of bribe money of Rs.25.00 lacs was effected. As accused - Amit Kumar Singal had accepted the bribe from the complainant through co-accused Harsh Kotak, consequently, both the accused i.e. Harsh Kotak and Amit Kumar Singal were arrested by the CBI on 31.05.2025 and 01.06.2025 respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner; led by Sh. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate; has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2025. Learned senior counsel has further iterated that the petitioner is a senior Income Tax Officer and, thus, there is no chance of his absconding from the process of justice. Learned senior counsel has further argued that the investigation in the FIR in question is complete and trial will take its own time. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the trial, involving voluminous documentary and electronic evidence, is likely to take considerable time to conclude. It has been further argued that the petitioner is a man with clean antecedents. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that in view of the pendency of CRWP-6297-2025, instituted by the petitioner, before this Court and this Court being also in seisin of bail plea of co-accused namely Harsh Kotak (CRM-M-37123-2025), the petitioner seeks entertainment of the instant petition by this Court, without having availed the remedy before the concerned Special Judge/trial Court. On the strength of these submissions, the grant of regular bail is entreated for.
4. Respondent-CBI has filed reply dated 12.08.2025 opposing the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Raising submission in tandem with the said reply, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has strenuously argued that the allegations raised against the
A direct application for bail to the High Court is permissible in exceptional circumstances, although the Sessions Court is the preferred forum for such applications.
The court emphasized the constitutional right to timely bail hearings, mandating that bail applications be resolved within two weeks, aligning with the principles of justice and the presumption of in....
(1) Bail jurisprudence is a facet of a civilised criminal justice system. An accused is innocent until proven guilty by a competent court following the due process.(2) Delhi Liquor scam – Power to ar....
Anticipatory bail applications under S.438 must typically be filed in the Sessions Court first, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
The High Court has the authority to grant bail under Section 389(2) despite prior denials by subordinate courts, maintaining concurrent jurisdiction to enhance access to justice.
(1) Anticipatory bail – Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify offence or offences in respect of which alone order will be effective – Blanket order of anticipatory bail is bo....
Anticipatory bail applications must first be filed in the Sessions Court, respecting the hierarchy of courts.
Direct approach to High Court for anticipatory bail must follow Sessions Court application unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that must be justified by circumstances, balancing the rights of the accused against the interests of justice and effective investigation.
The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail, but should only entertain direct applications in exceptional circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
