Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel, has allowed a petition seeking grant of regular bail. The Court directed that the petitioner be released from custody subject to fulfilment of specified conditions. It recorded that while the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without first exhausting the remedy before the Special Judge or Sessions Court, the peculiar facts of the case warranted the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court. Ultimately, the Court ordered release on regular bail, observing that the continued incarceration of the petitioner would serve no substantial purpose as investigation was complete and the trial would take considerable time.

The matter pertained to allegations arising from a regular case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on May 31, 2025, under FIR RC0052025A0011 at the Police Station CBI, ACB, Chandigarh. The offences were registered under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 61(2) and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and other allied provisions. The case involved allegations that the petitioner, a senior Income Tax Officer, had in collusion with another accused, Harsh Kotak, demanded illegal gratification for resolving issues pertaining to a tax notice issued to a complainant.

Also Read: Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Survive Breach Of Mandatory Safeguards | Supreme Court Reaffirms Natural Justice As Integral To Article 14 And Strikes Down Bank’s Dismissal Order

According to the allegations, both accused demanded a total sum of Rs. 45 lakh from the complainant for resolution of pending tax matters. On the day of registration of the FIR, May 31, 2025, the CBI laid a trap. During this operation, co-accused Harsh Kotak was apprehended at the residence of the petitioner while allegedly accepting Rs. 25 lakh on behalf of the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner had accepted the bribe through the co-accused. Both accused were arrested, Kotak on May 31, 2025, and the petitioner, Dr. Amit Kumar Singal, on June 1, 2025.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was in custody since June 1, 2025, and that the investigation in the case was complete. It was submitted that trial would take its own time in view of voluminous documentary and electronic evidence. The petitioner was stated to be a man with clean antecedents. It was also argued that a related criminal writ petition (CRWP-6297-2025) concerning the alleged illegality of arrest of the petitioner was pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner contended that the High Court could entertain his plea for bail notwithstanding that he had not approached the Special Court in the first instance.

The respondent-CBI opposed the grant of bail. In its reply dated August 12, 2025, the CBI contended that the petitioner was the principal accused who had orchestrated the demand for illegal gratification. It was argued that the complicity of the petitioner had been established during investigation through corroborated audio recordings, digital evidence, and witness statements. The CBI further contended that the petitioner had not availed the remedy before the Special Judge, and that entertaining the petition directly before the High Court would set an undesirable precedent. It was stated that the allegations were serious in nature, and given the petitioner’s position as a senior IRS officer, his misuse of authority had been prima facie established.

The complainant, represented by Senior Advocate S.P. Jain, also opposed the grant of bail. It was contended that the petitioner had misused his official position by issuing notices to the complainant to exert undue pressure. The complainant’s counsel submitted that this reinforced the petitioner’s role as the principal accused. It was further argued that if released on bail, the petitioner was likely to influence witnesses and obstruct the trial. On these grounds, dismissal of the bail petition was sought.

The Court recorded that the primary legal issues for consideration were whether an accused is entitled to directly approach the High Court for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, without first approaching the Sessions Court, and if so, whether such right is absolute or subject to defining factors.

The Court examined the statutory framework under the Cr.P.C. of 1898, the Cr.P.C. of 1973, and the BNSS, 2023. It recorded: “A bare reading of the statutory provision contained in Section 439 of Cr.P.C./Section 483 of BNSS does reflect that an accused is entitled to make a plea for grant of regular bail before the Sessions Court as well as the High Court. In other words, there is no statutory impediment for an accused to exercise a choice in straightaway/directly filing a plea for the regular bail before the High Court and not approaching the Sessions Court in the first instance.”

At the same time, the Court distinguished between maintainability and desirability of such petitions. It observed: “There is no gainsaying that there is a difference between the ‘maintainability of a petition’ and ‘desirability to entertain a petition’. The difference is antithetical, divergent & as stark as that between chalk and cheese.”

The Court referred to the principle of judicial discipline, observing: “The principle of judicial propriety mandates that a litigant exhaust remedies before the lowest available forum. Permitting otherwise would, essentially, allow a litigant to circumvent the initial process and procedures of the subordinate court, thereby treating concurrent jurisdiction as a license of convenience rather than as a procedural safeguard.”

The judgment considered several precedents including decisions of the Kerala High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court, and the Supreme Court. Referring to the decision in Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550), the Court recorded: “An undertrial thus should, ordinarily, first approach the Trial Court for bail, as this process not only provides the accused an opportunity for initial relief but also allows the High Court to serve as a secondary avenue if the Trial Court denies bail for inadequate reasons.”

The Court clarified that in exceptional circumstances, a direct approach to the High Court could be entertained. It stated: “The above ratiocination, in the light of the above case law, pellucidly reflects that a plea for grant of regular bail, filed straightaway before the High Court in the first instance, ought to be entertained only if there are exceptional circumstances made out therein.”

The Court further observed that the term exceptional circumstances is inherently incapable of precise definition: “It goes without saying that there can be no determinative or exhaustive definition of the expression ‘exceptional circumstances’—this concept by itself is incapable of a rigid definition—rendering a universally prescriptive definition an exercise in jurisprudential futility.”

Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observed that the petitioner had directly invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court without first exhausting the remedy before the Special Judge. However, it noted: “In peculiar facts of the instant case, this Court is persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of entertaining the instant petition. It is not without significance that a Criminal Writ Petition (CRWP-6297-2025) instituted by the petitioner, arising from the same FIR, is already pending adjudication before this Court.”

On the issue of bail, the Court examined principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012). It noted: “The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” It also recorded: “Necessity is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted.”

The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since June 1, 2025. It recorded that investigation was complete, the charge sheet filed on July 30, 2025, and that 19 prosecution witnesses had been cited but none examined so far. It stated: “It is, thus, indubitable that the culmination of the trial will take its own time in view of the voluminous evidence and number of witnesses and thus, keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any substantial purpose once the investigation is complete.”

The Court allowed the petition and ordered: “In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned Judge/Duty Magistrate.” The Court specified that the petitioner shall remain bound by conditions.

Also Read: Failure To Frame Counter Claim Despite Pleadings Is Patently Illegal | Delhi High Court Says Refusal “Shocks The Conscience Of The Court”

It directed: “The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer and shall not change his cellphone number without prior permission of the Special Court. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.”

It further recorded: “In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned Special Judge/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the CBI/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.”

The Court clarified: “Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.” It also directed that all pending miscellaneous applications would stand disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Divya Bhagwan, Advocate.

For the Respondent: CBI: Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Retainer Counsel for the CBI.

For the Complainant: Mr. S.P. Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meghna Malik, Advocate, and Mr. Gagandeep Jammu, Advocate.

Case Title: Dr. Amit Kumar Singal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:107533

Case Number: CRM-M-42377-2025 (O&M) with CRM-31794-2025 and CRM-30428-2025

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel