The court affirmed that, where no credible evidence of significant cash payments exists in the investigation record, prolonged custody pending trial would be unjustified; reaffirming existing principles prioritizing personal liberty, this judgment clarifies that bail can be granted in such circumstances under the new BNSS, 2023. This serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in cases involving similar evidentiary contexts in economic offences.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/32856/2025 of BOOTA SINGH SRAN Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010959152025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether bail should be granted when investigation finds no corroborative evidence of alleged cash transaction backing abetment to suicide charges under Sections 108 and 351(2) BNS, 2023. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that prolonged detention is unwarranted where, upon completion of investigation, no credible evidence confirming the alleged cash transaction is found. Charges are yet to be framed and trial is pending, which may take considerable time. Granting bail is justified to protect the petitioner’s liberty until allegations are proved at trial. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner was implicated on the accusation that deceased paid a large sum in cash, leading to his suicide. Investigation found no evidence of such payments in petitioner’s or his wife’s accounts. Petitioner has already spent over four months in custody, investigation is complete and charges are yet to be framed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment clarifies that, in the absence of convincing evidence of cash transactions supporting allegations (even in serious economic offences), bail should not be denied solely due to the gravity of unproven allegations.
- Reaffirms that bail can be granted even after completion of investigation and before framing of charges, particularly when trial is expected to be prolonged.
- Regular bail may be granted where co-accused has been granted bail on similar grounds and investigation does not link accused to alleged proceeds.
- Practitioners may cite this case where cash-based allegations lack supporting documentary evidence post-investigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered both parties’ submissions and reviewed custody records.
- A critical factor was that neither the petitioner nor his wife was found to have received any cash payments in their bank accounts, as alleged by the prosecution.
- The entire case of the prosecution rested on large, unsubstantiated cash payments, and these allegations remained unsupported by evidence following investigation.
- The wife/co-accused was already granted anticipatory bail; this parity was noted.
- With investigation completed and charges yet to be framed, the judge recognized that trial conclusion could take a considerable duration.
- The court held that continued detention would be unjustified in the absence of credible evidence and affirmed the principle that liberty cannot be curtailed until allegations are proved at trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Co-accused (wife) already granted anticipatory bail by Sessions Court.
- Investigation completed; final report submitted.
- No cogent or convincing evidence linking petitioner to alleged cash transaction.
- Petitioner has already been in jail for over four months.
- Trial will likely take a long time; charges not yet framed.
- Prolonged detention without proof of allegations is unjust; requests regular bail.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted custody certificate confirming period of incarceration.
- Noted involvement of petitioner in another case under NDPS Act; bail already granted in that case.
- Did not controvert the submissions made by the petitioner regarding evidence and case status.
Factual Background
The petitioner was accused in an FIR alleging abetment of suicide, based on claims that the deceased paid Rs. 85 lakhs in cash for sending people abroad and was subsequently pressured, contributing to his suicide. The investigation found no evidence of such payments in the accounts of the petitioner or his wife. The co-accused (wife) had already received anticipatory bail, and the petitioner had been in custody for more than four months, with the investigation completed and the trial yet to commence.
Statutory Analysis
- The court considered the provisions relating to bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (previously Section 438 Cr.P.C.), with specific application to economic offences under Sections 108 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023.
- No interpretation of these sections was undertaken beyond applying the general principle that, absent supporting evidence post-investigation, bail can be considered.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Affirms established principles regarding granting of bail in absence of supporting evidence.