The High Court has reaffirmed that further detention of an undertrial accused, when the trial is unduly delayed and key investigation stages are complete, transgresses Article 21 rights, even in cases involving serious offences. The decision follows Supreme Court precedent, maintains established law on bail principles, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in bail applications involving prolonged incarceration.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/56319/2025 of RAMESH @ YOGI SHIVNATH Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011598442025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal (Bail; Pre-trial Detention; Rights under Article 21; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Arms Act, 1959) |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged pre-trial detention, in the face of delayed trial and completed investigation, violates Article 21 rights. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that continued detention, where investigation is complete, charges framed, and the trial is inordinately delayed, serves no useful purpose and infringes the right to personal liberty under Article 21. The principle that “bail is a rule, jail is an exception” was reaffirmed. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reiterating that indefinite pre-conviction incarceration is impermissible. The decision does not express any opinion on the merits of the case but rests on the constitutional guarantee against indefinite pre-trial incarceration. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial violates principles laid down in Dataram Singh and Article 21 of the Constitution. Bail is the general rule, jail is the exception, subject to case facts. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner in jail for over 1 year 3 months in connection with murder case; co-accused already granted bail; investigation done, charges framed, trial proceeding slowly; first-time offender; no recovery from petitioner; bail opposed by State citing seriousness of offence and alleged role in conspiracy/providing weapons. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court in similar bail/prolonged detention contexts |
| Follows | Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that prolonged pre-trial detention, even in serious offences, can be a ground for bail under Article 21 if the trial is delayed and investigation is over.
- Citations to “bail is the rule, jail is an exception” hold strong precedential value in similar bail applications.
- Co-accused already granted bail significantly bolsters arguments for parity and bail to other accused.
- Lawyers can rely on this decision for clients incarcerated long-term where trial progress is slow, regardless of gravity of charges, if the investigation is complete and there are no compelling grounds for continued custody.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the custody period already undergone by the petitioner (over 1 year and 3 months), the completion of investigation, presentation of the challan, framing of charges, and the fact that the trial was proceeding at a very slow pace.
- The court noted that co-accused were already granted bail by both the trial court and coordinate benches of the High Court.
- It was held that continuing detention in these circumstances would not advance the cause of justice and would violate the petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” was reaffirmed, with heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dataram Singh (2018).
- The court clarified that findings herein are not to be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution’s case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner falsely implicated; not present at the scene and missing from the FIR.
- Implication based solely on disclosure statement by co-accused, which is inadmissible.
- No incriminating recovery from petitioner; clean antecedents; not involved in any other case.
- Co-accused have already received bail/anticipatory bail.
- Petitioner in custody since 15.07.2024; trial progressing slowly with only 9 out of 51 witnesses examined; further incarceration serves no purpose.
State / Respondent
- Opposed bail on grounds of seriousness of the offence and alleged active participation in conspiracy.
- Alleged petitioner supplied weapons (four pistols and 20 cartridges) to co-accused.
- Did not contest petitioner’s lack of prior criminal record.
Factual Background
The FIR was registered on 11.07.2024 at Police Station Hansi, Hisar, against several accused including the petitioner, under Section 103(1) read with Sections 3(5), 61(2), 253 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The incident involved the murder of Ravinder Saini allegedly due to old enmity. The petitioner was not named in the FIR but was later implicated via the disclosure statement of a co-accused. No recovery was made from the petitioner, who was arrested on 15.07.2024. Co-accused were already granted bail. The petitioner had no prior criminal history, and the trial was ongoing with significant delays.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Invoked for seeking regular bail.
- Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2), 253 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Relate to substantive offences including murder and conspiracy.
- Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: Relates to illegal possession and supply of arms.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Core constitutional protection against deprivation of life or personal liberty save by procedure established by law. The court interpreted Article 21 broadly to protect against indefinite pre-trial incarceration where the trial was delayed and investigation complete.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment follows the established precedent, specifically reaffirming the Supreme Court’s view in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.