The Punjab & Haryana High Court reiterates that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial justify bail even in serious IPC cases, so long as case circumstances warrant and Article 21 protections are at stake—relying on Supreme Court precedent, this decision bolsters the principle for all subordinate courts in Haryana and Punjab.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/11173/2025 of SHISHPAL SHARMA Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010310672025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., 2012(2) SCC 382) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Bail, Constitutional Law (Article 21) |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delays in the context of serious non-bailable offences must tip the balance in favour of regular bail, even if specific allegations exist. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that with more than a year of custody, significant pendency in trial (only 3 of 27 witnesses examined), and a likely delayed trial, continued detention would violate Article 21. The past criminal antecedents or severity of offence alone cannot be decisive; rather, individual accused roles, stage of proceedings, and right to speedy trial must be weighed. Citing Supreme Court law, the court reasoned that facts warranted bail. Conditions to protect trial integrity were imposed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., 2012(2) SCC 382 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Role of accused and risk of witness tampering, possibility of absconding, stage of trial, and individual rights under Article 21 of Constitution. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner in custody for over one year; specific allegations are made, but fatal injury attributed to son; trial significantly pending; charges framed; prior bail granted in unrelated case; conditions for bail imposed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, similarly situated criminal matters |
| Follows | Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., 2012(2) SCC 382 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that length of custody and substantial pendency in trial, even for grave charges (including sections 307, 302 IPC), can entitle an accused to bail due to Article 21 considerations.
- Severity of offence or pendency of other criminal proceedings cannot alone defeat bail, unless facts suggest risk of justice being thwarted.
- Bail can be conditioned with detailed restraints to safeguard trial integrity (e.g., non-tampering, regular attendance, bar on travelling out of country).
- Factual stage of trial (number of witnesses examined, charges framed, pending applications) remains crucial for considering bail in serious offences.
- Judgment provides ready precedent for accused languishing in pre-trial custody where trial is likely to be protracted.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered that the petitioner had spent over one year in custody, and trial progress was sluggish (only 3 out of 27 witnesses examined).
- Noted that although the petitioner faced grave charges and had one past case (in which bail was already granted), the FIR only indicated his presence with a lathi, with fatal injury attributed to his son.
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s principle in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi that mere criminal antecedents cannot justify denial of bail; courts must examine role and risk factors such as flight or witness tampering.
- Emphasized Article 21’s guarantee against undue deprivation of liberty where trial cannot be completed expeditiously.
- Set out detailed conditions to mitigate risks while granting bail, and clarified that the State may seek cancellation if these are breached.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Incarcerated for over one year, with only allegations of being present with a lathi.
- Main fatal injury attributed to son, not the petitioner.
- Only 3 of 27 prosecution witnesses examined; trial progress is slow.
- Referenced Supreme Court precedent (Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi).
- On bail in another unrelated NI Act matter.
State
- Opposed bail, arguing there are specific allegations and the petitioner was going towards the scene while his son committed the main act.
Complainant
- Aligned with State counsel in opposing bail on ground of specific allegations.
Factual Background
The petitioner was accused in an FIR registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 307, 302, and 506 IPC at Police Station Nigdu, District Karnal, in connection with an incident in which a fatal injury was caused. The main allegation of causing the fatal injury was attributed to the petitioner’s son, while the petitioner was shown as moving towards the scene with a lathi. Charges were framed on 21.01.2025. Of 27 prosecution witnesses, only 3 (including the father of the deceased) had been examined at the time of the present petition. The petitioner had been in custody for more than one year. An application under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused was pending. The petitioner was on bail in another unrelated case under the NI Act.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 439 CrPC: The provision for regular bail in cases of non-bailable offences. The court exercised its discretion under this section, referencing the standards articulated by the Supreme Court.
- Article 21, Constitution of India: The right to life and personal liberty, especially as it relates to claims of prolonged, unjustified pre-trial detention.
- Supreme Court Precedent: Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., 2012(2) SCC 382 was cited to clarify that roles in the offence, risk factors, and trial progress are pivotal; past criminal record alone is insufficient to deny bail.
Procedural Innovations
- The court elaborated comprehensive conditions for bail, requiring disclosure of address and contact by affidavit and forbidding change without court approval.
- Emphasized liberty of the State to seek bail cancellation upon breach of conditions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed — Judgment relies on and affirms established Supreme Court principles regarding bail, pre-trial custody, and Article 21.