The High Court reaffirms that in serious offences like murder based on circumstantial evidence, the pendency of trial, hostile witnesses, and bail to a co-accused are not sufficient grounds for regular bail where substantial allegations remain. The judgment upholds established bail jurisprudence and clarifies its continued precedential authority for subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/28322/2025 of JASPREET SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010822722025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether benefit of bail can be extended in murder cases based on hostile witnesses, parity with co-accused, and pendency of trial, where case rests on circumstantial evidence and serious allegations persist? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, the presence of some hostile witnesses and bail to a co-accused do not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail if serious allegations and implicating testimony persist. The testimony of PW-7 established the petitioner’s presence at the hotel with the victim, making the involvement of the petitioner a matter for trial. The case being based on circumstantial evidence must be decided after full appreciation at trial. The seriousness of the offence and nature of the allegations override parity and adverse witness testimony. Bail was thus denied. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, along with co-accused, is alleged to have murdered the victim in a hotel room. FIR was registered based on the complaint of the victim’s father. Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile, but one (PW-7) identified the petitioner. Prior bail petitions were withdrawn/unpressed. The trial is ongoing. |
| Citations | CRM-M-28322-2025, decided on 01.09.2025, Punjab and Haryana High Court (Unreported as of judgment date) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the presence of hostile or non-identifying prosecution witnesses does not automatically weaken a prosecution case at the bail stage if other incriminatory evidence exists, especially in circumstantial cases.
- Establishes that parity with a co-accused granted bail is insufficient where the role and evidence concerning the petitioner are distinguishable.
- Highlights that the seriousness of the charge—murder under circumstantial evidence—remains a significant bar to bail unless exonerating circumstances are clear.
- Demonstrates the courts’ reluctance to grant regular bail in grave offences until the chain of circumstances is fully examined at trial.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the entire set of allegations, including the chain of events leading to the identification of the petitioner in the company of the deceased at the hotel on the day of the incident.
- The depositions of material witnesses were scrutinized: while the complainant and certain shopkeepers turned hostile or failed to identify the petitioner, PW-7 (hotel staff) unequivocally identified the petitioner as being with the deceased in the hotel room on the relevant day.
- The Court reasoned that, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, partial hostility or non-identification by witnesses does not conclude the matter in favour of the accused at the bail stage where key links in the chain persist.
- Parity with a co-accused was rejected as a ground because the facts and evidence concerning the present petitioner varied materially.
- The gravity of the allegations—murder—and completion of merely a part of trial evidence weighed against grant of bail.
- The Court concluded that a decision on innocence or further benefit must await the completion of the trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner is falsely implicated; there is a four-day delay in FIR registration.
- Arrest was solely on suspicion.
- Disclosure statements are inadmissible.
- Material witnesses have been examined; most have not supported the prosecution and have turned hostile.
- A co-accused on similar footing has been granted bail; therefore, parity applies.
- Further incarceration would serve no useful purpose as the trial will take considerable time.
Respondent (State of Haryana)
- Given the gravity of the allegations, the petitioner does not deserve regular bail.
Factual Background
The petitioner and co-accused are alleged to have murdered the complainant’s son, whose body was found tied in a sack near a drain. The FIR was registered on 03.02.2022 under Section 302 IPC, with Sections 34 and 201 added later. The petitioner was arrested with others following disclosure statements about their role in the murder, which allegedly occurred in a hotel room after consuming drugs. During the trial, several prosecution witnesses turned hostile, but one hotel employee identified the petitioner as being present with the victim.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment was rendered on a bail petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), analogous to bail provisions under the earlier CrPC.
- Offences under Sections 302, 34, and 201 IPC were invoked.
- The Court did not find grounds under the relevant statutory provisions for bail in light of the serious nature of allegations and partial evidentiary support connecting the petitioner to the crime.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on bail in murder cases and the approach to hostile witnesses/parity was affirmed.
Citations
- CRM-M-28322-2025, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Decision Date: 01.09.2025