The High Court clarified that, in a magisterial trial for economic offences under Section 420 and 120-B IPC, an accused may be granted regular bail under Section 483 BNSS if there is prolonged custody, no examination of witnesses, and the petitioner’s specific involvement remains unclear—even where the prosecution alleges criminal antecedents. This judgment affirms established bail jurisprudence and is binding authority within Punjab & Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/47290/2025 of SATNAM SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011345382025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Bail Jurisprudence |
| Questions of Law | Whether regular bail should be granted under Section 483 BNSS for an accused in custody in an economic offence where lengthy custody and trial delay exist, and the specific involvement is doubtful? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that in a magisterial trial for economic offences (Sections 420/120-B IPC), where the petitioner is in long custody and not a single witness has been examined, and where the implication is primarily by association rather than direct evidence, bail is warranted. The petitioner’s prior cases, in which he was already on bail, did not disqualify him. The Court further noted that bail conditions should prevent witness tampering, and observations in the order do not fetter the trial court’s decision on merits. This approach is in line with settled principles for grant of bail and does not amount to a finding on guilt. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was implicated for allegedly conspiring to send the complainant’s son abroad for Rs.18.5 lakhs; Rs.13.42 lakhs allegedly paid but neither the son sent nor money returned. Petitioner linked by relationship, not direct transaction. In custody since 05.05.2025; trial has not commenced. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that regular bail can be granted in magisterial trials for economic offences—even if the accused faces other criminal cases—if long custody, trial delay, and doubtful involvement are present.
- Direct receipt of the alleged amount by the accused is a crucial consideration for bail in economic offences.
- Past criminal cases do not automatically preclude bail when already granted in those cases.
- Conditions attached to bail to prevent interference with witnesses are critical and should be specifically ordered.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the factual allegations, emphasizing that the petitioner’s linkage to the offence was by relationship, with no direct evidence of the amount being credited to him.
- It considered the substantial period of custody (since 05.05.2025) and the fact that no witnesses out of twenty-four had yet been examined.
- Trial delay in a magisterial case was cited as a ground for granting bail.
- The Court acknowledged previous bail in other cases against the petitioner, differentiating between the gravity of alleged involvement and direct evidence.
- State’s and complainant’s opposition was countered by their inability to dispute the basic facts or present evidence of actual threats or interference by the petitioner.
- The order was carefully embargoed so as not to prejudice the merits during trial and specifically restrained the petitioner from deterring or influencing witnesses.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Implicated only due to relationship with co-accused; no transaction directly linked to petitioner.
- No funds credited to petitioner’s account.
- Has been in custody since 05.05.2025.
- None of 24 witnesses examined; trial likely to be protracted.
- Involvement in the alleged offence is doubtful.
Respondent (State and Complainant)
- Petitioner has criminal antecedents and involvement in similar cases.
- Opposed bail on grounds of petitioner’s past record.
- Did not dispute facts regarding the status of trial or nature of evidence.
Factual Background
The petitioner was alleged to have conspired, along with others, to send the complainant’s son abroad for a payment of Rs.18.5 lakhs. Of this, Rs.13.42 lakhs were paid via cash and RTGS, but neither was the service rendered nor the amount refunded. FIR No. 78 dated 23.05.2022 was lodged at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner’s involvement was allegedly based on his relationship with another accused, and he had been in custody since 05.05.2025, with no prosecution witnesses examined at the time of the bail application.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was invoked for regular bail.
- Offences under Section 420 and 120-B IPC formed the substantive charges.
- The judgment interpreted Section 483 BNSS in light of custody duration, trial stage, and strength of evidence, indicating that bail can be granted when trial delay and lack of direct involvement are established.
- Bail conditions imposed included prohibition on influencing witnesses and restraining from threats.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed