The High Court reaffirms that extended pre-trial custody and slow prosecution progress may warrant regular bail, even in grave offences under the IPC and Arms Act, where there is no evidence the accused will tamper with witnesses. This clarification is binding authority for subordinate courts, providing a robust precedent for bail applications in cases of substantial delay.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/63671/2024 of SONU Vs UT OF CHANDIGARH |
| CNR | PHHC011743382024 |
| Date of Registration | 16-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—Regular Bail under IPC and Arms Act Offences |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged custody and delay in prosecution justify regular bail even in serious alleged offences involving extortion and firearms. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where the accused has undergone substantial pre-trial custody (over two years and seven months) and there is significant delay in prosecution with only minimal evidence recorded, it is appropriate to grant regular bail, subject to conditions preventing witness intimidation or tampering. The court gave weight to the duration of custody and the state of evidence as decisive factors. Observations made do not impact the trial on merits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
FIR alleged threats and extortion calls, followed by firearm discharge outside complainant’s club, allegedly in collusion with a gangster. Only 2 out of 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined; petitioner had over 2 years and 7 months in custody. |
| Citations | CRM-M-63671-2024, Decision dated 02.09.2025, Punjab & Haryana High Court |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Existing Supreme Court principles on bail for prolonged custody and trial delays |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that prolonged trial delays and extended pre-trial custody are valid grounds for bail, even in serious offences under IPC and the Arms Act.
- The court’s approach applies irrespective of the nature of allegations where trial progress is stagnant.
- Lawyers can leverage substantial pre-trial custody and lack of prosecution diligence as grounds for bail.
- Express conditions were stipulated: no threat or influence to prosecution witnesses.
- Observations clarified to not prejudice the merits at trial.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the gravity of the allegations: extortion threats, ransom demands, and use of firearms at the complainant’s club.
- It weighed the petitioner’s actual period in custody (2 years, 7 months, 5 days) and found that only 2 of 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined.
- The respondent-State argued the conduct of the petitioner as a key facilitator; however, the court gave primacy to the duration of pre-trial detention and slow trial progress.
- The fact that in another case, the petitioner had already been granted bail, was noted by the court.
- The court allowed regular bail, subject to stringent conditions and without expressing merits on the case, ensuring fair trial integrity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged involvement limited to firing shots outside the complainant’s club.
- Over 2 years and 7 months in actual custody.
- Only 2 out of 22 witnesses examined; trial progressing extremely slowly.
- Already granted bail in another similar case.
Respondent (U.T. Chandigarh)
- Petitioner is a key facilitator for the gangster accused of making extortion calls.
- Delay in prosecution due to co-accused’s discharge application, not prosecution’s fault.
Factual Background
An FIR was registered based on complaints of extortion and threat to life, involving WhatsApp ransom calls by a gangster and firing outside the complainant’s club. The petitioner allegedly fired shots as a show of force in collusion with the extortionist. The investigating agency cited 22 prosecution witnesses, but in over two-and-a-half years of custody for the petitioner, only two had been examined.
Statutory Analysis
- The court addressed offences under Sections 384, 383, 506, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
- No novel interpretation of these statutes was presented; rather, the focus was on procedural fairness and the bail jurisdiction.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision upholds and applies established bail jurisprudence regarding prolonged pre-trial detention.
Citations
CRM-M-63671-2024, Decision dated 02.09.2025, Punjab & Haryana High Court