CRM-M No. 22228 of 2026 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

disposed of by directing the respondents to appear before the Custom Authorities. The Court, however, did not stop there. It stated that even if the Custom Authorities find any non-bailable offence against the applicants (respondents herein), they shall not be arrested "without ten days prior notice to them. 64. In our judgment, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, neither of the above directions can be said to be legal, valid or in consonance with law. Firstly, the order passed by the High Court is a blanket one as held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh and seeks to grant protection to respondents in respect of any non bailable offence. Secondly, it illegally obstructs, interferes and curtails the authority of Custom Officers from exercising statutory power of arrest a person said to have committed a non-bailable offence by imposing a condition of giving ten days prior notice, a condition not warranted by law. The order passed by the High Court to the extent of directions issued to the Custom Authorities is, therefore, liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.”

8. More recently, a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and others 2020 (5) SCC 1; has also dealt with this issue while relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra) and observed that anticipatory bail should not be in the nature of a blanket bail. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- “92. This Court, in the light of the above discussion in the two judgments, and in the light of the answers to the reference, hereby clarifies that the following need to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438, Cr.PC;

92.1. XXXXX

92.2. XXXXX MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.04.24 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CRM-M-22228-2026 5

93.3. XXXXX

92.4. XXXXX

92.5. XXXXX

92.6. An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.”

9. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, directing the respondent-State to serve seven days prior notice before arrest would virtually amount to granting a blanket protection from arrest, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above. Thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. (cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:25) /(cid:6)/(cid:10)(cid:6) (cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:27) (cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:7) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No 5(cid:14)(cid:25)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:25)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:29)(cid:25) (cid:4) (cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)8(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)(cid:4)9(cid:25)(cid:7):&(cid:27) MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.04.24 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh