The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms that delay or prolonged trial cannot, by itself, justify the grant of regular bail in serious offences like double murder where the minimum punishment is life imprisonment, especially when the State is not responsible for the delay. The decision follows established precedent and serves as binding authority for similar bail applications; it does not overrule or narrow prior law but strongly clarifies existing principles for all subordinate courts in the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/3230/2025 of RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA ALIAS JASSI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010090952025 |
| Date of Registration | 18-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Bail jurisprudence under Section 439 CrPC in murder cases |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration (about 7 years) alone entitles an accused to regular bail in a double murder case under Section 302 IPC when the minimum punishment is life imprisonment and the State is not responsible for delay. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that lengthy pre-trial custody of the accused (about seven years) alone does not constitute “prolonged incarceration” justifying the grant of regular bail in a double murder case, especially when the minimum punishment prescribed is life imprisonment. The Court reasoned that since the trial was at the final stage (defence evidence and arguments), and the State assured no delay on its part, there was no change in circumstances since earlier bail denials on merits. Hence, there was no ground for deviating from prior orders. The Court requested the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Previous coordinate Bench decisions rejecting bail on merits in the same case |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Double murder alleged with firearms; FIR under Section 302/34 IPC and Arms Act; petitioner incarcerated since 2018; bail sought on grounds of prolonged pre-trial custody. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering bail in similar grave offences involving prolonged custody |
| Follows | Previous coordinate Bench orders in the same matter and established bail-law jurisprudence |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- A custody period of seven years in a double murder case does not obligatorily amount to “prolonged imprisonment” that would justify regular bail, especially where life imprisonment is the minimum prescribed punishment.
- Mere delay in conducting the trial is not a sufficient ground for bail if such delay is not attributable to the prosecution/State.
- Repeated bail petitions citing only trial delay, without new or changed circumstances, will not be entertained where the offence is grave and the trial is nearing completion.
- The High Court expects the trial court to expedite proceedings if the trial is at the defence evidence/arguments stage.
- Lawyers must show exceptional circumstances or material change since previous bail rejections to persuade the bench.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first considered the petitioner’s ground for bail: pre-trial custody exceeding 7 years.
- The State submitted there was no delay attributable to the prosecution and assured no adjournment requests in the future, requesting trial expedition.
- The Court noted that the petitioner’s previous bail applications had been dismissed on merits by coordinate benches and there was no change in circumstances apart from the passage of time.
- The only “changed” circumstance was the delay, which, in cases where the minimum punishment is life imprisonment for double murder, does not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail.
- The Court highlighted that, as the trial had reached the point for defence evidence and arguments, the process was at its terminal stage.
- Relying on prior dismissals and the State’s assurance of expeditious conduct, the Court refused to grant bail and requested the Trial Court to prioritize the case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought bail citing more than 7 years in custody without conclusion of trial.
- Submitted willingness for bail with any stringent conditions the court deemed fit.
- Expressed no objection to bail cancellation if any new serious offence was committed after release.
State
- Opposed bail, stressing that it was a case of double murder with a minimum punishment of life imprisonment.
- Asserted that the delay in trial was not attributable to the State, and the trial was at the stage of defence evidence and arguments.
- Referred to prior recoveries, FSL report, witness statements, and the active role attributed to the petitioner in the murders.
- Gave an undertaking that the prosecution would not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Factual Background
The FIR was lodged after two murders were discovered on 02.09.2018, with the allegation that the petitioner and co-accused had killed Charanjeet @ Chirri and his wife Pooja over property transaction disputes. Firearms and related evidence were recovered and sent for forensic analysis, linking the weapons to the crime. The petitioner has been in custody for over seven years, and multiple bail applications had been dismissed prior to this petition, which was based solely on the duration of incarceration.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 439 CrPC: The power of High Court to grant regular bail was considered.
- Section 302/34 IPC and relevant sections of the Arms Act: The offences involved relate to double murder, where the minimum statutory punishment is life imprisonment.
- The Court’s analysis centered on whether “prolonged pre-trial incarceration” alone constitutes a special circumstance for bail under Section 439 CrPC in such grave cases, holding that it does not, absent attributable delay to the prosecution.
- No broader or narrower interpretative approaches or constitutional provisions were invoked.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in this single-judge judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial on a day-to-day basis with topmost priority.
- Proceedings for bail do not create new procedural norms but stress urgent trial completion when defence evidence and arguments remain.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed established principles relating to bail in serious offences and did not overrule or alter existing law.