The High Court reaffirms that extended custody pending sluggish trial progression, without conviction, violates Article 21 rights. The precedent upholds the Supreme Court’s “bail is the rule” principle and is binding within the State, guiding bail applications where trial delay is apparent.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/26659/2025 of SURAJ Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010756312025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Bail Jurisprudence under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court found that keeping an accused in prolonged pre-trial detention when investigation is complete, challan is presented, charges are framed, and no witness has been examined, infringes the right to life and liberty under Article 21. Where trial is likely to be delayed, further incarceration serves no useful purpose and bail must be considered the rule. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s articulation that indefinite detention without conviction violates Article 21 and established the principle that “bail is the rule; jail is the exception”. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner accused in a case where injuries were caused to the complainant’s husband. Challan presented, charges framed, trial yet to commence examination of witnesses, petitioner in custody for over 9 months, clean antecedents, and investigation complete. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in criminal bail matters involving prolonged pre-trial custody and delayed trial |
| Follows | Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that extended pre-trial detention after investigation is complete and with slow trial progress is contrary to Article 21.
- Expressly endorses the “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” principle for delayed criminal proceedings.
- Lawyers can cite this as binding authority where prolonged incarceration is caused by sluggish trial process, even for serious offences once investigation and framing of charges are complete.
- Clean antecedents and absence of risk to prosecution strengthen bail claims when the trial is not moving forward.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- After hearing both parties, the Court observed the petitioner had been in custody over 9 months, with investigation complete, challan presented, charges framed, and no prosecution witnesses examined, indicating the trial would take substantial time to conclude.
- Keeping the petitioner detained under such circumstances would violate rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Strong reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court decision in Dataram Singh, which states that indefinite pre-conviction detention infringes fundamental liberty and that the general principle favors bail except in exceptional situations.
- The Court concluded that further incarceration was unwarranted and ordered release on bail.
- It was clarified that the order shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Falsely implicated; no connection or enmity with complainant.
- Named after FIR registration; case of version and cross-version.
- Only simple injuries attributed; no recovery required.
- Clean antecedents; not involved in any other case.
- Investigation complete, challan presented, charges framed, witnesses not examined, and trial will be protracted.
- No purpose served by continued custody.
State (Respondent)
- Opposed bail citing seriousness of the offence and an active role alleged for the petitioner.
- Admitted petitioner’s clean antecedents and did not dispute long custody, but emphasized gravity of allegation.
Factual Background
The petitioner was named as accused in an FIR alleging injuries with intent to kill the complainant’s husband. The incident was characterized by competing versions, with the defence asserting the complainant’s husband was the initial aggressor. The petitioner was alleged only to have inflicted simple injuries. Investigation was completed, challan presented, and charges framed while the petitioner remained in custody for more than nine months without examination of any prosecution witness.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition was under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relating to powers for granting bail.
- The court considered Article 21 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the right to life and liberty.
- Provisions under the BNS, 2023 invoked in the FIR included Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), and later Section 117(2).
- No “reading down” or expansive statutory interpretation is recorded apart from applying the constitutional standard as emphasized by Supreme Court precedent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The case follows and applies established Supreme Court precedent regarding bail and pre-trial incarceration.