The High Court holds that where allegations are serious and circumstantial evidence against the accused remains to be completed, regular bail need not be granted even if multiple witnesses have turned hostile and a co-accused has obtained bail. The decision upholds precedent for strict bail standards in grave offences, providing binding authority for bail jurisprudence in murder trials.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/28322/2025 of JASPREET SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010822722025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench (MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Bail, Section 483 BNSS (corresponds to Section 439 CrPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail should be granted when key witnesses have turned hostile and a co-accused has been released on bail, in a case involving grave allegations and pending circumstantial evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that in cases involving serious charges such as murder, and where the case is based on circumstantial evidence yet to be completed, the turning hostile of certain witnesses and the release of a co-accused on bail do not by themselves justify grant of bail to the petitioner. The nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, and the testimony still implicating the accused (such as occupancy of the hotel room with the victim) weigh against bail. The Court considered the testimonies placed on record, specifically noting the identification by a material witness (PW-7), and concluded that bail was not warranted at this stage. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought regular bail in a murder case where the deceased’s body was found in a sack, and the petitioner was accused of killing him in a hotel along with co-accused. Witnesses relevant to key circumstances had turned hostile, and one co-accused was on bail. The petitioner argued for release on parity, benefit of hostile witnesses, and pending lengthy trial. The prosecution opposed, citing gravity. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and appellate courts considering bail in serious criminal cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that in serious offences like murder, bail may be denied despite hostile witnesses if circumstantial evidence against the accused remains to be fully established.
- The grant of bail to a co-accused does not automatically entitle others to bail on grounds of parity, especially when the role or evidentiary position differs.
- Lawyers arguing bail in grave cases must address any pending or uncontroverted circumstantial evidence.
- Hostility of some prosecution witnesses does not conclusively entitle an accused to bail if material suspects remain on record and the overall case is not fully dismantled.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court meticulously reviewed the statements of prosecution witnesses, noting that most key witnesses (PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6) had not supported the prosecution and some had turned hostile.
- Only PW-7 Sudhir Kumar positively identified the petitioner as present with the deceased on the crucial day in the hotel.
- The Court reasoned that, despite hostile witnesses, the seriousness and nature of the allegations, coupled with incomplete circumstantial evidence and the material identification by PW-7, preclude entitlement to bail at this stage.
- The parity argument was rejected on the basis that mere bail to a co-accused does not guarantee bail to others when facts and roles differ, or when remaining evidence continues to implicate the petitioner.
- The Court held that further incarceration is justified, considering the stage of trial and gravity of the crime.
- No judicial precedents or substantive statutory interpretations were cited; the reasoning rests on factual evaluation and established principles for bail in serious cases.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Falsely implicated; delay of four days in FIR registration questioned.
- Arrested only on suspicion.
- Disclosure statements inadmissible.
- Material witnesses turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution.
- Co-accused on similar footing has been granted bail; parity urged.
- Further incarceration serves no useful purpose; trial is protracted.
State (Respondent)
- The gravity of the allegations precludes bail.
- Seriousness of the offence (murder) emphasised.
Factual Background
A murder case was registered after the body of the complainant’s son was discovered in a sack near a drain, following his disappearance from Baddi and last known intention to travel for a Covid test. Investigation revealed alleged involvement of the petitioner and three others, arrested and accused of the killing in a hotel room after a reported altercation. The trial is in progress, with several prosecution witnesses examined; most turned hostile, but at least one witness tied the petitioner to the crime scene.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for regular bail.
- The FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC, with Sections 34 and 201 added later.
- No particular statutory interpretation or manipulation of provisions was undertaken; the Court evaluated the application of bail principles to the facts.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court applies well-established principles on bail in serious offences.
Citations
- Single Bench, MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA, CRM-M No.28322 of 2025, Decision dated 01.09.2025, CNR PHHC010822722025.