Bail cannot be refused solely due to criminal antecedents if other bail considerations support release; High Court applies Supreme Court precedent and reaffirms existing law under BNSS, 2023 – binding on subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/58083/2025 of PARAMJIT SINGH ALIAS PAMMA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011622502025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure – Bail |
| Questions of Law | Whether mere criminal antecedents are sufficient for denial of bail when other bail considerations favor release. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that mere involvement in other cases or criminal antecedents cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny bail if other relevant considerations support the grant of bail. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Maulana Mohammad Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012), which clarified that bail should not be refused solely on the basis of antecedents. The completion of investigation, the lengthy trial, absence of injuries to police officials, and lack of necessity for further custodial interrogation favored allowing bail. The judgment reiterates that each bail application must be decided on its own facts and blanket denial for past conduct is not permitted under law. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Maulana Mohammad Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Maulana Mohammad Amir Rashadi, stating criminal antecedents cannot alone justify denial of bail; continued detention unjustified when trial is delayed and other considerations are met. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, accused of firing at police during a recovery operation, was injured and arrested. Investigation concluded; he was in custody since 02.03.2024. Only one of 14 prosecution witnesses examined; prior involvement in other cases noted, but no police officer was injured in this incident. Bail was previously denied but withdrawn. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, and may inform Supreme Court reasoning on bail and criminal antecedents |
| Follows | Maulana Mohammad Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that criminal antecedents alone are not a valid ground to deny bail if other bail factors (such as completed investigation, no threat to witnesses, long trial pendency) favor release.
- Relies on Supreme Court authority to clarify subordinate courts should not default to bail denial citing past cases alone.
- Lawyers may cite this judgment when prosecution resists bail merely on the basis of prior cases.
- Emphasizes that prolonged custody, particularly post-challan and with slow trial progress, weighs in favor of bail.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the petitioner was accused of firing at police but no police official suffered injury.
- The investigation is complete, and the petitioner has remained in custody since March 2024.
- Out of 14 witnesses, only one has been examined, making early trial conclusion unlikely.
- The State opposed bail citing criminal antecedents and seriousness of the offence.
- The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s Maulana Mohammad Amir Rashadi ruling, which held that previous criminal involvement alone cannot justify bail denial.
- The Court found continued detention unnecessary, especially as witnesses were police officers not susceptible to intimidation, and further custody would serve no useful purpose.
- On this basis, regular bail was granted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claims false implication in the case.
- Has been in custody since 02.03.2024.
- No necessity for further custodial interrogation; investigation complete and challan presented.
- Prolonged trial means continued incarceration serves no useful purpose.
- No possibility of intimidating witnesses, who are police officials.
- Past involvement in other cases not sufficient ground to deny bail.
- No one else injured; only petitioner suffered injuries.
State
- Argues serious allegations: petitioner attempted to kill police during weapons recovery.
- Petitioner is a habitual offender; several cases pending.
- Risks of absconding or committing similar offences if released.
- Bail ought to be denied.
Factual Background
The petitioner, along with two others, was apprehended during a follow-up operation related to an earlier FIR. While police were recovering arms based on disclosure statements, the petitioner allegedly fired at police to evade arrest but was injured when the police fired in self-defense. He has been in custody since March 2024. Investigation is complete, and only one out of 14 prosecution witnesses has been examined. Bail was previously sought and withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked for regular bail.
- The Court applied this provision alongside established jurisprudence under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) as interpreted for bail.
- No new statutory interpretation; the provision was applied as per precedent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court’s established view reiterated on criminal antecedents not being a sole ground for bail denial.