Supreme Court reverses pre-arrest bail rejection order by Justice Purnendu Singh

In Praween Barnawal @ Praween Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025),Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 4-page long order dated November 6, 2025, wherein, he concluded:''....the interim protection granted by this Court on 18.09.2025 is made absolute and it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail, provided he continues to cooperate in the investigation.'' It disposed of the Special Leave Petition. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR of 2024 dated December 30, 2024, which was rejected by the High Court and the courts below.During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated September 18, 2025 and it was provided that if the petitioner joins the investigation and cooperates with the Investigating Officer (IO), no coercive steps shall be taken against him. The petitioner joined the investigation and was found cooperating with the IO.

Earlier, in Praween Barnawal @ Praween Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court passed a 3-page long order dated August 20, 2025, wherein, he concluded:''7. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact that though it is not specific in the FIR, as to whether, the demand of dowry was made just before the alleged murder took place, however, considering the fact that certain amount was transferred through RTGS into the account of the petitioner just before the marriage on 03.02.2022 and the marriage had taken place on 10.02.2022 and it is evident that after commission of murder, the dead body was hanged and the door was locked from outside, I don’t find that in any manner the complicity of the petitioner can be denied. I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.'' 

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. case of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 and 3(5) of the BNS. According to the allegation made in the FIR, for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the petitioner along with other co-accused committed murder of the daughter of the informant. The deceased was found hanging in a close room which was locked from outside. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner was younger brother of the husband of the deceased and he was a student and had no connection with the matrimonial affairs between the husband and the wife and due to some difference, the petitioner who was not present at the time of alleged offence was implicated in the  case on the ground that certain amount was transferred through RTGS into the account of the petitioner just before the marriage took place which was deposited willingly by the father of the deceased. The counsel also submitted that for similar allegation, other co-accused was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court vide order dated April 30, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.22663 of 2025. The petitioner had clean antecedent and sought pre-arrest bail.

Abhlasha Jha, the counsel on behalf of the informant had vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail. She submitted that the entire family including the petitioner had committed murder of the daughter of the informant and after commission of murder, the dead body was hanged and the door was locked from outside and, as such, the complicity of the petitioner cannot be denied in the alleged murder. APP for the State also vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.