Clarifies that the proviso to Section 480(2) of the BNSS, 2023 (similar to Section 437 CrPC), requires courts to show special sensitivity while considering bail for women accused, even in serious offences. High Court reaffirms and applies existing Supreme Court precedent; decision is binding on subordinate courts and has persuasive value for other jurisdictions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/24429/2025 of SUMAN Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010704102025 |
| Date of Registration | 03-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive authority for other High Courts |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure/Bail Law under BNSS (formerly CrPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether, under the proviso to Section 480(2) BNSS (pari materia with Section 437 CrPC), a female accused should be granted bail even in serious offences, considering circumstances and welfare intent of the proviso. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The proviso to Section 480(2) BNSS, like the proviso to Section 437 CrPC, embodies a welfare intent and mandates that courts must show special consideration and sensitivity when female accused apply for bail. The Court reaffirmed that this proviso must be considered along with the facts and circumstances of each case, noting that Article 21 rights to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence remain paramount even for serious crimes. Further detention of a woman accused, where trial is delayed and there is no evidence of risk or tampering, is not warranted. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner, a 40-year-old woman, was arrested as an alleged conspirator in the murder of her husband, based on circumstantial evidence and claimed illicit relations with a co-accused. She had been in custody since 16.06.2023, with over 2 years, 4 months detention, no prior FIRs, and only 3 out of 22 prosecution witnesses examined so far. State opposed bail due to seriousness; defence invoked welfare and Article 21 considerations. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the proviso to Section 480(2) BNSS (like Section 437 CrPC) is a welfare provision mandating sensitive bail consideration for women, even in serious offences.
- Clarifies that factors such as prolonged undertrial incarceration, lack of evidence of tampering or absconding, and parity with Article 21 rights, can warrant bail for female accused.
- Cites recent Supreme Court and High Court decisions to emphasize that the welfare proviso must not be overlooked by Sessions or High Courts, and applies even if offences are grave.
- Lawyers can use this to strengthen bail applications for women under BNSS, especially where trial delay and welfare factors exist.
- Sets out concrete bail conditions to guide subordinate courts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted petitioner’s extended custody as an undertrial (over 2 years), the slow pace of trial (3 out of 22 witnesses examined), and absence of prior FIRs or evidence of risk.
- Cited and relied on Supreme Court’s dictum in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, which underscored the principle that seriousness of crime cannot alone displace Article 21 guarantees of speedy trial and presumption of innocence.
- Applied the proviso to Section 480(2) BNSS (corresponding to Section 437 CrPC) as welfare legislation, highlighting judgments such as Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) and the High Court’s own precedent in Ravinder Kaur v. State of Punjab.
- Emphasized that while the proviso does not mandate automatic bail for women, courts are required to show special consideration towards women accused, even in serious offences, considering their circumstances.
- Found nothing to indicate risk of absconding or evidence tampering by petitioner.
- Ordered release on regular bail with conditions, citing that further detention was not warranted in the circumstances.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner has clean antecedents and has been in custody since 16.06.2023.
- Petitioner was falsely implicated; evidence is only circumstantial and does not directly connect her.
- She is a 40-year-old lady; Section 480(2) BNSS proviso and welfare intent support bail.
- Further detention is unjustified given slow trial and lack of adverse factors.
State
- Allegations are serious (criminal conspiracy and murder); petitioner does not deserve regular bail.
- Placed on record detention and custody certificate.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a 40-year-old woman, was arrested for alleged criminal conspiracy and murder of her husband in collaboration with a co-accused, based on allegations of an illicit relationship. The FIR was registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala under Sections 120-B, 302 IPC, and Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act. The petitioner had been in custody since 16.06.2023; the trial progressed slowly, with only 3 of 22 witnesses examined. No evidence connected her directly to the crime, and she had no previous involvement in any FIR.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 480(2) BNSS (pari materia with Section 437 CrPC) proviso was interpreted as a welfare provision, requiring courts to take special note when a bail applicant is a woman.
- The Court reaffirmed that this social welfare interpretation is binding at all bail stages, not just before Magistrates.
- Referred to Article 21 of the Constitution (right to speedy trial, presumption of innocence), instructing that its protection applies regardless of crime’s seriousness.
- No “reading down” applied, but purposive/welfare interpretation adopted as per binding precedent.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed that the specific bail conditions (not misusing liberty, not tampering with evidence, not absenting, not reoffending, surrender of passport, disclosure of cellphone number, no delay of trial) must be imposed; recourse for State or complainant to move for cancellation of bail upon breach is explicitly specified.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law regarding bail considerations and application of the welfare proviso for women accused is affirmed and clarified.