Gurvinder Singh vs Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh - Anticipatory Bail - Restoration

Case Name and Neutral Citation

• Case Name: Gurvinder Singh v. Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh & Anr.
• Neutral Citation: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3843/2025), Supreme Court of India

Coram

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Judgment Date

• Date: 15th September 2025

Supreme Court Order: Gurvinder Singh v. Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh & Anr. — Q&A

Legal Issues and Holdings

What was the central legal issue before the Supreme Court?

• Whether a Single Judge of the High Court could recall an earlier detailed order dismissing a plea for anticipatory bail and then grant anticipatory bail in the same matter.

What did the Supreme Court hold on the recall/restoration of anticipatory bail proceedings?

• The Court held that, after dismissing an anticipatory bail application by a detailed order, the Single Judge could not revive the proceedings, much less by way of restoration, and then grant anticipatory bail. Such a course is “unknown in law” and “impermissible.”

Did the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s recall order?

• Yes. The impugned order dated 07.02.2025—by which the High Court recalled its earlier dismissal and granted anticipatory bail—was set aside.

What is the status of the original anticipatory bail order?

• The initial order dated 17.01.2025 dismissing the anticipatory bail application stands revived.

What immediate legal consequences follow from the revival?

• “Consequences to follow” indicates that, with the dismissal revived, any protection arising from the recalled order ceases, and the parties must proceed based on the revived dismissal. Parties may pursue further remedies available in law.

Did the Supreme Court decide the merits of anticipatory bail?

• No. The Court addressed the legality of the High Court’s recall/restoration procedure, not the underlying merits of anticipatory bail.

What reasoning did the Supreme Court provide?

• The Court found “substance” in the appellant’s contention that the High Court adopted a legally impermissible procedure. Once a detailed dismissal order is passed in anticipatory bail, the proceeding stands finally concluded and cannot be revived by recall/restoration to reverse the outcome.

Did the Supreme Court reference any specific statutory provisions or precedent?

• No specific statutes or precedents are cited in the text provided. The ruling rests on the procedural impropriety identified by the Court.

What remedies remain open to the parties?

• The Court expressly left parties “open to avail the remedies as may be available to them in law,” signaling that any fresh or alternative lawful procedural routes may still be pursued.

What is the formal disposition of the appeal?

• Leave was granted; the appeal was allowed in terms of the signed order; pending applications were disposed of.

Procedural History and Case Posture

What triggered the appeal to the Supreme Court?

• The High Court first dismissed an anticipatory bail plea on 17.01.2025. On a later petition, it recalled that dismissal and granted anticipatory bail on 07.02.2025. The appellant challenged this recall-and-grant order in the Supreme Court.

What case numbers are involved?

• Supreme Court: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3843/2025, converted to Criminal Appeal No. of 2025.
• High Court: CRM No. 3089/2025 in CRM-M No. 41080/2024.

What dates are material?

• 17.01.2025: High Court initially dismissed anticipatory bail.
• 07.02.2025: High Court recalled dismissal and granted anticipatory bail.
• 15.09.2025: Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the recall order, and revived the initial dismissal.

Parties and Appearance

1. Who are the parties?

• Appellant/Petitioner: Gurvinder Singh.
• Respondent No. 1/Accused: Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh.
• Respondent No. 2: State of Punjab.

Which bench decided the matter?

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.

Who appeared for the parties?

• For Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR; Mr. Kunal Jindia, Adv.; Ms. Gauri Swarup Bansal, Adv.
• For Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar Talesara, AOR; Mr. Jamshed Bey, Adv.; Mr. Tejasvi Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Syed Sarfaraz Karim, Adv.; Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Adv.; Mrs. Renu Bhandari, Adv.; Mr. Mudit Talesara, Adv.; Mr. Samarth Talesara, Adv.
• Also listed: Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR; Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv.; Mr. Chetan Manchanda, Adv.

Practical Implications and Next Steps

What does this ruling imply for High Court practice on anticipatory bail?

• Once an anticipatory bail application is dismissed by a reasoned order, the same court/Single Judge cannot recall that dismissal to revive the proceeding and alter the outcome via restoration. Any further relief must be sought through legally permissible avenues, not by recall.

What can the accused (Respondent No. 1) do now?

• Explore remedies available “in law” consistent with this ruling—e.g., any fresh steps permissible under procedural law or approaching the appropriate forum, subject to procedural constraints recognized by this order.

What does “consequences to follow” mean for law enforcement and parties?

• With the recall order set aside and the original dismissal revived, any interim protections from the recalled order no longer operate. The legal position reverts to the status after the 17.01.2025 dismissal, and actions must align with that posture.

Did the Supreme Court comment on the reasons the High Court gave for recall?

• The Court noted that the respondent argued “cogent reasons” were recorded, but ultimately found the course adopted was impermissible regardless, and therefore set aside the recall order.

Is there any indication of costs or adverse remarks?

• No costs or adverse remarks are recorded in the provided text.

What is the final operative text of the Supreme Court’s order?

• Impugned order dated 07.02.2025 is set aside; initial order dated 17.01.2025 dismissing anticipatory bail is revived; appeal allowed; consequences to follow; parties may pursue remedies in law; pending applications disposed of.