Court holds that extended pre-trial custody and slow progress of trial, even in serious offences like rape, may warrant release on regular bail where the investigation is complete and only a fraction of prosecution witnesses have been examined. Judgment affirms established bail principles and serves as 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 (MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged undertrial custody, complete investigation, and slow trial progress justify grant of bail |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that, given the petitioner’s custody of over one year and four months, completion of investigation, filing of challan, framing of charges, and examination of only three out of fifteen witnesses with pending applications that may further delay proceedings, continued detention was unwarranted. The petitioner’s lack of involvement in other cases and the prosecution’s inability to refute delays were also key factors. This justified granting regular bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
FIR under Sections 342, 376 & 506 IPC; Petitioner in custody since 29.04.2024; charge-sheet filed; only 3 of 15 witnesses examined; delay likely due to pending application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that prolonged pre-trial detention—over one year and four months—may justify regular bail, even in serious non-bailable offences like rape, when the trial is likely to be protracted.
- The court considered the pendency of applications (e.g., under Section 319 CrPC) and examination of only a fraction of witnesses as relevant to bail.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to strengthen bail applications where custody is lengthy, and trial progress is demonstrably slow, regardless of the gravity of accusation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but primarily focused on the length of the petitioner’s custody and the incomplete state of the trial.
- It noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over one year and four months, the investigation had concluded, and only three prosecution witnesses had been examined out of fifteen.
- The pendency of an application under Section 319 CrPC indicated that the trial would not conclude shortly.
- The court harmonized these practical factors and held that continued detention would serve no fruitful purpose at this stage, justifying regular bail.
- The order explicitly stated it does not opine on merits, focusing solely on bail parameters.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Denied allegations; claimed false implication as a counterblast to a complaint filed by his wife against the complainant’s husband and others.
- Highlighted absence of injury as per medical report conducted two days after the alleged incident.
- Argued for bail citing long judicial custody (since 29.04.2024), no other criminal involvement, and delay in trial (only 3 out of 15 witnesses examined).
- Investigation complete, charges framed, and trial likely to be delayed further due to pending application under Section 319 CrPC.
State
- Opposed bail on the ground that allegations are serious in nature.
- Did not refute that only a small portion of prosecution witnesses have been examined and that the petitioner had been in custody for more than a year and four months.
Factual Background
The petitioner was accused by the prosecutrix of committing rape in his photostat shop on 24.04.2024, after allegedly making her unconscious. The accused and his wife subsequently threatened the prosecutrix and her family. FIR No. 30 dated 25.04.2024 was filed under Sections 342, 376, and 506 IPC. The petitioner has remained in custody since 29.04.2024. The investigation is complete, the chargesheet has been submitted, charges have been framed, but only three of fifteen prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the trial’s completion is delayed due to a pending application under Section 319 CrPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding grant of regular bail.
- Noted procedural aspect of Section 319 CrPC (for summoning additional accused) causing delay in trial.
- Emphasized the application of bail principles after completion of investigation, framing of charges, and pending trial.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmation of existing bail principles relating to prolonged detention and trial delay.