A significant and rare procedural development recently emerged from FIR No. 286 dated 30.10.2025, registered under Sections 109, 103(1), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. The FIR arose out of the widely reported Bath Castle, Ludhiana shooting incident, in which two persons lost their lives after being shot by gangsters during a wedding function. The case attracted unprecedented public attention and intense media scrutiny, and was covered extensively by leading national newspapers and digital platforms.
In the immediate aftermath of the incident, the investigating agency adopted a highly aggressive stance, shaped in no small measure by public outrage and sustained media pressure. Among those named in the FIR was Mr. Varinder Kapoor, the groom and host of the wedding where the incident occurred. Significantly, his implication was not supported by any allegation of direct participation, recovery of weapon, conspiracy, or any overt act demonstrating mens rea. Nevertheless, given the seriousness of the offence and the prevailing public narrative, the investigating agency appeared inclined to effect his arrest, thereby compelling him to approach the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Ludhiana, by way of an application for anticipatory bail.
During the course of anticipatory bail proceedings, an extraordinary and constitutionally significant development unfolded. Instead of treating the bail application as a mere formality, the Hon’ble Sessions Court exercised searching judicial scrutiny and questioned the Investigating Officer on the precise statutory provision under which Mr. Kapoor had been nominated as an accused and the nature of incriminating material justifying his implication in a double-murder case. The investigating agency failed to provide any cogent or legally sustainable explanation. Consequently, on 14.01.2026, the Investigating Officer made a categorical statement in open court that Mr. Varinder Kapoor would not be arrested for the next two days, stating that the matter required reconsideration after consultation with senior police officials. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 17.01.2026.
This marked a clear departure from the prosecution’s earlier posture and underscored the role of judicial oversight in insulating criminal process from public and media pressure. The Hon’ble Court further observed that the mere fact that the applicant was the host or groom at his own wedding could not, by itself, form the basis for his implication in such a grave offence. The proceedings thus moved beyond the conventional framework of bail adjudication and into an examination of the very substratum of the prosecution case.
On the adjourned date, 17.01.2026, the Investigating Officer made an unequivocal concession before the Hon’ble Court, acknowledging that apart from the allegation that Mr. Kapoor was the host of the wedding, no role, overt act, criminal intent or substantive incriminating material had emerged during the investigation. The investigating agency went a step further and categorically stated that although Mr. Kapoor had initially been nominated as an accused in the FIR, it no longer intended to arrest him at all, as the evidence collected was insufficient to justify either his arrest or his continued implication in the case.
In view of this unambiguous concession, the anticipatory bail application was rendered infructuous. In legal parlance, an application becomes infructuous when the relief sought becomes unnecessary because the circumstances warranting such relief no longer exist. Once the investigating agency itself admits that an accused is neither required to be arrested nor proceeded against, nothing further survives for adjudication. Importantly, this outcome did not occur mechanically, but was the direct result of sustained and principled judicial scrutiny exercised at the pre-arrest stage.
The legal significance of this outcome was reinforced by reliance on several authoritative judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab, Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, which unequivocally establish that the jurisdiction of a Sessions Court under Section 438 CrPC is complete and unfettered, subject only to judicial discretion. These judgments settle the law that there is no category-wise or offence-wise bar on the grant of anticipatory bail and that even offences punishable with death or life imprisonment do not create an automatic embargo on pre-arrest protection. The gravity of the offence, by itself, cannot eclipse the constitutional mandate to protect personal liberty, nor can it justify arrest in the absence of legally credible material.
Further reliance was placed on binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of unlawful assembly and vicarious liability, including Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan vs State of Gujarat and Others and Zainul vs State of Bihar. These judgments categorically hold that mere presence of an individual at the scene of a crime involving a large mob cannot, without further evidence, justify an inference that such person was part of an unlawful assembly. A mere bystander, to whom no specific role or overt act is attributed, does not fall within the ambit of unlawful assembly unless it is clearly established that such person shared the common object of the assembly. These principles squarely applied to the facts of the present case and ultimately weighed with the prosecution in conceding the absence of any sustainable case against the applicant.
The matter was argued on behalf of the applicant by Mr. Jaspreet Singh Benipal (J.S. Benipal), Advocate, along with Advocate Nirjog Singh Mann, Hashandeep Sidhu and Gurkaran Singh Dhillon, all practising before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Across six separate hearings—an unusual occurrence in a double-murder bail matter—the defence demonstrated that Mr. Kapoor had been made a scapegoat and that his implication was the product of public sentiment rather than evidence. Faced with settled constitutional and criminal jurisprudence and unable to distinguish or counter the cited precedents, the prosecution was ultimately compelled to withdraw from prosecuting the applicant in open court.
What renders this development exceptional is the fact that the Hon’ble Court did not confine itself to the mechanical grant of bail. Instead, by exercising judicial vigilance at the anticipatory bail stage, it ensured that an unsustainable prosecution was dismantled before irreversible damage to personal liberty could occur. Such a withdrawal of allegations by the police, particularly in a high-profile double-murder case, is exceedingly rare and carries far-reaching implications for bail jurisprudence, prosecutorial accountability and the constitutional protection of individual liberty.
Although the development has been reported by legal portals such as LatestLaws, the matter merits deeper academic and professional engagement for the principles it reinforces. This case is viewed as a compelling illustration of how effective advocacy, combined with principled judicial scrutiny, can prevent misuse of the criminal justice system and uphold the rule of law at its most critical stage.
Author Bio:
Adv. Jaspreet SinghBenipal, (B.A., LL.B., LL.M.) Advocate On Record (AOR), Punjab & Haryana High Court.