The High Court has reiterated that, where the accused is involved in multiple similar offences and has prior convictions, bail can be denied even if trial is likely to be delayed; such apprehensions of absconding or committing further similar offences are valid considerations at the interim stage. This decision upholds established principles and acts as a binding authority for subordinate courts in bail matters involving habitual offenders, especially under Section 483 BNSS and allied statutes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/44635/2025 of RAM TIRATH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011292972025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law, Bail, Section 483 BNSS, NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that when the accused faces serious allegations, is involved in multiple similar cases (with prior convictions), and there is a genuine apprehension of absconding or repeating offences, bail should not be granted. The Court found the apprehension of absconding or reoffending valid in such circumstances. The examination of the complainant and her son supported the prosecution’s case. Therefore, the nature of accusations, recovery of contraband, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents justified dismissal of the bail application, even if the trial may be protracted. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Allegations included lacing juice with intoxicant substance and committing theft of ornaments, cash, and mobile. Following arrest, recovery included morphine sulphate injections and stolen items. The accused is implicated in eleven similar cases, with six convictions. The complainant and her son’s testimonies supported the prosecution’s version. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts hearing bail matters involving habitual offenders and Section 483 BNSS |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a history of similar offences and prior convictions are strong grounds to deny bail, even if complainant has been examined during trial.
- Emphasizes the validity of State’s apprehension regarding possible absconding or commission of similar offences by habitual offenders.
- Section 483 BNSS powers are to be exercised cautiously when multiple antecedents and serious accusations exist.
- Defense arguments on protracted trial alone may not suffice for bail when repeat offending and recovery of contraband are shown.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the seriousness of the allegations: administering an intoxicant to the complainant, thereafter committing theft of cash, ornaments, and phone.
- Noted effective recovery: morphine sulphate injections and stolen items from the accused.
- Both complainant and her son have been examined as prosecution witnesses and supported the prosecution’s version.
- The petitioner’s involvement in eleven more cases, six of which are of similar nature with six convictions, demonstrated a consistent pattern warranting the belief that he may abscond or reoffend.
- Based on these cumulative factors, the application of Section 483 BNSS for relief was not justified.
- Court clarified that factual observations pertain solely to bail disposal and do not reflect on merits of the ongoing trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted false implication.
- Highlighted continuous custody since 01.07.2023.
- Argued that the complainant, after being examined, had not implicated him in the subject offences.
- Stated that continued incarceration serves no purpose as trial is expected to take time; sought release on bail.
Respondent (State)
- Claimed petitioner mixed intoxicant in juice, leading to unconsciousness of complainant and theft.
- Pointed to recovery of stolen phone and contraband from the accused.
- Emphasized grave nature of the allegations.
- Noted that petitioner is a habitual offender, with 11 more cases and multiple convictions.
- Expressed apprehension that bail may result in absconding or similar offences; strongly opposed bail.
Factual Background
The complainant, who operates a marriage bureau, alleged that the accused approached her online seeking a matrimonial alliance. Arranging to meet at Gurudwara Shri Fatehgarh Sahib, the accused allegedly administered juice laced with an intoxicant to the complainant and her son, rendering them unconscious. After regaining consciousness, the complainant noted loss of ornaments, cash, and phone. On arrest, the accused confessed and recovery was effected of morphine sulphate injections and the stolen property. The investigation has been completed; the trial is ongoing.
Statutory Analysis
- The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Alleged offences invoked are Sections 328 (causing hurt by means of poison), 379 (theft), and 411 (receiving stolen property) of IPC along with Section 22 of the NDPS Act.
- The Court focused on the application of Section 483 BNSS, addressing the need for cautious exercise of bail discretion, especially where repeat offences and serious criminal antecedents are involved.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural measures or guidelines indicated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court reaffirmed existing principles on denial of bail to habitual offenders in serious cases, under Section 483 BNSS.