The High Court held that when a petitioner has undergone extensive pre-trial incarceration and the principal prosecution witness has already been examined, continued detention as an undertrial is not warranted in the absence of clear risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The case clarifies and reinforces bail principles under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and serves as binding precedent within its jurisdiction.
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/5936/2025 of Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana |
| CNR | PHHC010157842025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab and Haryana; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Bail – Section 483 BNSS, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration and examination of prime witness justify bail |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petitioner, accused of serious IPC offences, was not named in the initial FIR, but implicated in a later statement. The Court observed the petitioner had suffered more than 3 years’ incarceration, the primary prosecution witness had already been examined, and 15 of 22 witnesses had deposed. There was no evidence of risk of absconding or interference with evidence. The Court held that further detention was unwarranted in these circumstances, and regular bail was to be granted subject to conditions, reinforcing the relevance of both the length of pre-trial detention and advancement of trial. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was implicated in a murder case not by initial FIR but via a subsequent statement. He was arrested on 03.05.2022, suffered over 3 years’ custody, and 15 witnesses (including the main complainant) had been examined. The state presented a custody certificate but did not show risk of absconding or evidence tampering. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Long pre-trial incarceration (over 3 years) plus examination of the principal witness can justify regular bail even in cases of serious allegations, absent concrete risk of absconding or evidence tampering.
- Bail may be granted even when the accused was not named in the original FIR, especially if allegations arise later and investigation/trial have progressed.
- The petitioner’s lack of involvement in any other FIRs bolsters the case for bail.
- Detailed bail conditions (including passport deposit and no changing phone number without permission) have been affirmed as standard practice in such circumstances.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the facts establishing that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR and only implicated through a supplementary complainant statement.
- The petitioner had already spent over three years in custody, and the charge-sheet had been presented.
- Of 22 prosecution witnesses, 15—including the primary complainant—had been examined, curtailing risk of evidence tampering via witness intimidation.
- The State was unable to demonstrate likelihood of the petitioner either absconding or interfering with evidence.
- In light of these facts, the Court found no justification for continued detention, determining further incarceration would be unjustified, and thus allowed the bail application subject to specified conditions.
- The order makes clear its reasoning does not address merits of the underlying criminal case so as not to prejudice trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner has been in custody since 03.05.2022, suffering more than 3 years in jail.
- The petitioner was not named in the initial FIR and was only named in a subsequent complainant statement.
- Principal prosecution witness had already been examined.
- No tangible evidence exists against the petitioner.
- Petitioner is not involved in any other FIR.
- Prayed for regular bail.
State
- Allegations are serious in nature.
- Opposed grant of regular bail on grounds of seriousness of charges.
- Submitted updated custody certificate.
Factual Background
The case pertains to a murder in District Rewari, Haryana. The victim, Sachidanand Singh, was reported missing on the evening of 09.04.2022 and later discovered dead with his body tied and taped, on 10.04.2022. FIR No. 76/2022 under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC was registered. The petitioner was not named in the original FIR but was implicated in a supplementary statement made by the complainant on 17.04.2022. He was arrested on 03.05.2022 and remained in custody as the case proceeded to trial, with the main prosecution witness having been examined at the time of the bail hearing.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment interprets Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the provision governing bail in this context.
- The Court applies the statute in harmonisation with established bail principles, placing emphasis on the length of undertrial detention, lack of risk of absconding, absence of tampering with evidence, and progress in trial rather than solely on the gravity of accusations.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court imposed specific, clearly delineated bail conditions including surrender of passport, mandatory disclosure of phone number, and prohibition on changing contact details without court approval as part of bail requirements.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and clarifies pre-existing bail norms without overruling established law.