The court clarified that prolonged incarceration, non-expeditious trial, and completion of investigation may warrant release on bail even in serious offences, reaffirming established principles and providing binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/53830/2024 of NAVDEEP Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011469362024 |
| Date of Registration | 24-10-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana, persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Bail Jurisprudence) |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged pre-trial detention and delay in trial, after completion of investigation and framing of charges, justify grant of bail in serious non-bailable offences. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court found that where the accused has been in custody for over a year, investigation is complete, challan presented, charges framed, and only three out of fifteen prosecution witnesses examined, with prospects of further delay due to pending applications, continued detention serves no purpose and bail may be granted. The seriousness of the allegations alone does not automatically warrant denial of bail when trial is protracted and the accused otherwise satisfies requisite conditions. Observations are case-specific and do not reflect on merits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was accused under Sections 342, 376 & 506 IPC on allegations of rape and criminal intimidation. He contended the FIR was a counterblast to a molestation complaint made by his wife. There was no visible injury per medical report. He was in custody for over a year, investigation was complete, challan filed, charges framed, only 3 of 15 witnesses examined, and proceedings to summon his wife as accused were pending, likely delaying trial further. |
| Citations | None provided in the text. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court of India |
| Follows | Established Supreme Court and High Court bail jurisprudence on delay and custody |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment underscores that extended pre-trial custody, coupled with incomplete trial and complete investigation, can justify bail in grave offences.
- The court prioritized the right to liberty over the pendency of trial, especially when the prosecution is responsible for delays (e.g., pending Section 319 CrPC application).
- Lawyers can argue for bail in serious offences when there is protracted trial delay and the accused has completed substantial custody, even if allegations are severe.
- Bail orders must clarify that observations are confined to the bail stage and not merits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the duration of custody: petitioner was in jail for over one year and four months.
- It noted that the investigation was concluded, the challan was filed, charges had been framed, and trial was progressing slowly (only 3 out of 15 witnesses examined).
- The court took judicial notice that the prosecution’s application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the wife of the petitioner as an additional accused was still pending, further indicating substantial delay before trial’s conclusion.
- The State opposed bail based on seriousness of allegations but could not dispute the slow pace of trial or length of incarceration.
- The judge reasoned that in such circumstances, where the accused’s continued detention would not serve the interests of justice, grant of bail is justified. The order was expressly stated not to reflect on the merits of the case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted innocence and claimed false implication; incident did not occur as alleged.
- Highlighted counterblast theory: present FIR was retaliation for a molestation complaint made by his wife against others, including the prosecutrix’s husband, on the same day.
- Pointed out absence of injuries per medical report conducted two days post-incident.
- Argued that he had no previous criminal record and had been in custody since 29.04.2024.
- Emphasized that investigation was complete, challan filed, charges framed, only 3 of 15 witnesses examined, and prosecution’s Section 319 CrPC application was prolonging the trial.
State
- Opposed bail on grounds of serious nature of allegations.
- Confirmed petitioner’s long incarceration and incomplete witness examination.
- Did not refute facts regarding trial delay or status of prosecution witnesses.
Factual Background
The case arose from a complaint alleging that on 24.04.2024, the accused (photostat shop owner) lured the prosecutrix inside, locked the door, and committed rape before fleeing. The prosecutrix was released by the accused’s wife and later allegedly threatened by the accused and his wife. FIR was registered under Sections 34, 342, 376 & 506 IPC. Petitioner’s wife had simultaneously accused the complainant’s husband and others of molestation, leading to claim of false implication as a counterblast. Petitioner was arrested, medical examination revealed no visible injuries, and after over a year in custody with slow trial progress, bail was sought.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: The court exercised its power to grant bail under this provision, the successor to Section 439, CrPC.
- Section 319 CrPC: Discussed in context of pending prosecution application to summon additional accused, contributing to anticipated trial delay.
- The judgment is confined in scope to the principles guiding bail, with no interpretation or expansion of substantive offence provisions or compoundability.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Reaffirms established principles relating to grant of bail on account of prolonged custody and delayed trial.
Citations
No SCC, AIR, MANU, or neutral citations provided in the text.