The Court held that inordinate undertrial detention, even in serious non-bailable offences, necessitates bail when trial is unreasonably delayed and fundamental rights under Article 21 are infringed. Citing the Supreme Court, the judgment reinforces that seriousness of offence alone should not defeat bail if the right to speedy trial is being violated. This decision has binding value for subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana and offers persuasive precedent for other courts applying the BNSS, 2023.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/52857/2025 of SUKHDEV SINGH ALIAS SUKHA SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011514212025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Does prolonged undertrial detention justify bail in serious non-bailable offences under BNSS, 2023 where the right to speedy trial is violated? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court emphasized that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature or seriousness of the offence. Prolonged and unjustified pre-trial detention infringes this right, especially where key prosecution witnesses have been examined and no evidence suggests that the accused will abscond or interfere with the trial. The gravity of allegations by itself does not override the constitutional guarantee of liberty and speedy trial, and bail must be considered when delay is attributable to the prosecution or judicial process. The judgment leaned on the Supreme Court’s holding in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 4994 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasized presumption of innocence, rights under Article 21, and lack of reason to believe the accused will abscond or tamper with evidence during trial. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner had been in custody since 01.11.2023 for offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 & 34 IPC (later 307 & 201 IPC added). There was an 11-day delay in FIR, no medical evidence suggesting conviction was available according to the defence, and no prior criminal record. Key witnesses, including the injured and informant, had been examined. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, courts interpreting BNSS, 2023, and bail under Article 21 |
| Follows | Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 4994 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Under the BNSS, 2023, bail may be granted even in serious non-bailable offences if pre-trial detention is prolonged and the right to speedy trial is compromised.
- Seriousness of the charge does not, by itself, justify indefinite undertrial incarceration.
- The Court reaffirmed that Article 21’s guarantee of speedy trial is not contingent on the gravity of the offence.
- Lawyers can cite delays in trial, especially after examination of key witnesses, as justification for bail.
- The fact that the accused is not shown to have interfered with evidence or attempted to abscond weighs in favour of granting bail.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody for almost two years, with no evidence of him attempting to evade justice or tamper with evidence.
- Key prosecution witnesses, including the injured and the complainant, had already been examined, reducing the risk of influencing the trial.
- The judgment of the Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra was cited, emphasizing two points: (i) the presumption of innocence remains until conviction, and (ii) Article 21 guarantees speedy trial regardless of seriousness of the offence.
- The Court held that if the State or prosecution cannot ensure a reasonably prompt trial, it cannot rely on the seriousness of the crime to oppose bail.
- Noted absence of other FIRs or criminal antecedents against the petitioner.
- The Court imposed specific bail conditions, including prohibition on misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence, and requirement to remain present at trial, among others.
- The decision to grant bail was strictly without adjudication on merits to avoid prejudice to the ongoing trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Has been in custody since 01.11.2023.
- Alleged false implication in the FIR.
- Raised objection of unexplained 11-day delay in registration of FIR.
- Claimed absence of tangible medical evidence supporting prosecution’s case.
- Prayed for regular bail.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed the bail on grounds of seriousness of allegations.
- Placed on record custody certificate.
- Argued that petitioner does not deserve regular bail due to gravity of offence.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from repeated objections by the complainant’s family to the petitioner parking his rickshaw near their house. After a previous altercation that had been amicably settled, a violent incident occurred on 29.08.2023, during which the petitioner and co-accused allegedly assaulted the complainant’s son with weapons, causing serious injuries. FIR No. 139 dated 09.09.2023 was registered under several IPC sections, with Sections 307 and 201 IPC added subsequently. The petitioner was arrested on 01.11.2023 and remained in custody till bail was granted.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 448 BNSS, 2023: The Court applied the bail provisions under the new procedural code (Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
- The judgment interpreted that bail discretion remains available in serious offences where the right to speedy trial is infringed, aligning the interpretation of BNSS with established constitutional principles under Article 21.
- The Court referred to Article 21 of the Constitution, reiterating the constitutional requirement for expeditious trial.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court reaffirmed that even under the BNSS, 2023, the principle of granting bail due to undue delay and pre-trial incarceration remains available.
- Bail was granted with a structured set of conditions designed to address concerns of misuse and ensure trial attendance, codifying practical safeguards for release on bail in serious matters.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed