The Court held that continued incarceration pending a lengthy trial constitutes a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, regardless of the seriousness of the alleged offence. Affirming Supreme Court precedent, the decision confirms that bail can be granted in such circumstances. This ruling reinforces existing judicial standards and serves as strong binding authority for similar bail applications where trials are unduly delayed.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/47216/2025 of GURPREET SINGH ALIAS KUKKI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011355232025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; follows and affirms Supreme Court precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court decisions (Ashim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Bail and Right to Speedy Trial) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a prolonged period of custody pending trial, even for serious offences, violates the right to speedy trial and warrants bail. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Where prolonged pre-trial detention defeats an accused’s right to speedy trial—guaranteed under Article 21—the court is empowered to grant bail, irrespective of the gravity of the alleged crime. The seriousness of the charge cannot override constitutional guarantees if the prosecution fails to conclude the trial within a reasonable period. The High Court rested its conclusion on settled Supreme Court rulings, establishing that continued pre-trial incarceration for several years amounts to arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Satisfaction of the conditions for bail is sufficient; merits of the case are not to be pre-judged at this stage. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner arrested on 06.06.2022 under Sections 323, 308, 34 IPC; over three years in custody; trial delayed; seven out of twenty witnesses examined. Injury caused by brickbat, not lethal weapon; significant delay in FIR registration; previous seven bail petitions withdrawn. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court in similar factual situations |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Bail must be considered where pre-trial custody exceeds three years, even for non-bailable/serious IPC charges, if the trial is delayed.
- The court reaffirmed that right to speedy trial rests on constitutional footing under Article 21 and overrides the seriousness of allegations.
- Lawyers can cite this decision to request bail in cases with inordinate trial delays, grounding arguments in Supreme Court precedent.
- The gravity of the offence and pending witnesses are not by themselves valid reasons to deny bail if pre-trial incarceration is excessive.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but emphasised the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21.
- It noted the petitioner had been incarcerated for over three years without significant progress in the trial (only 7 out of 20 witnesses examined).
- The Court applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Ashim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya v. NIA and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra: deprivation of liberty without speedy trial is unconstitutional.
- The right to liberty is not “absolute”, but extended pre-trial custody pending delayed justice offends public confidence and basic human rights.
- On these grounds, without expressing any view on merits, bail was granted with standard conditions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Falsely implicated; no intention to kill evident from the allegations.
- Injury caused by brickbat, not a lethal weapon.
- Incarcerated for over three years; fundamental right to speedy trial impaired.
- Significant unexplained delay in FIR registration (10 days).
- Material witnesses already examined; further custody unjustified.
State
- Petitioner played specific role in causing injury.
- Serious charge; 13 of 20 prosecution witnesses still to be examined.
- Opposed bail on grounds of seriousness and pending evidence.
Factual Background
The case arose from a neighbourhood altercation on 21.04.2022, leading to the petitioner being accused of assaulting the complainant with a brickbat, allegedly at the exhortation of a co-accused. The complainant remained unconscious and registered the FIR on 01.05.2022 under Sections 323, 308, and 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 06.06.2022 and remained in custody for more than three years as the trial progressed slowly, with only some witnesses examined despite 20 being cited.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 21 of the Constitution: The right to life and personal liberty includes the right to a speedy trial.
- Sections 323, 308, 34 IPC: Charges under these are non-compoundable and considered serious, but the court clarified that seriousness alone does not preclude bail when trial delays are protracted.
- The principle that bail must be considered in light of delay was reiterated.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment clarified that if the petitioner does not furnish bail/surety bonds within one week, custody beyond this period will not be counted in the relevant case.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedents on right to speedy trial and bail in case of inordinate delay are affirmed.
Citations
- Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya v. National Investigation Agency, 2022(1) SCC 695
- Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 (Supreme Court)