Regular bail must be granted when an accused has been in custody for an extended period, the trial is likely to take considerable time, and there is no evidence of misuse of bail; the judgment upholds established constitutional and bail principles. The decision reaffirms the importance of Article 21 (right to personal liberty) and serves as binding authority on subordinate courts in similar bail applications within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/47639/2025 of HARVIR SINGH @ HARVEER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011373122025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether prolonged incarceration during trial, without involvement in other cases and in the absence of specific evidence of bail misuse, warrants the grant of regular bail to ensure the accused’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The judgment holds that where an accused has been in custody for a significant period (8 months and 1 day), is not involved in other criminal cases, and the trial is likely to experience substantial delay due to the large number of remaining prosecution witnesses, continued incarceration would violate Article 21. The right to speedy trial and personal liberty is held to be of paramount importance, and bail can be granted subject to appropriate conditions. The court affirmed that this order is only for deciding the bail application and does not prejudice the merits of the ongoing trial. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was in custody for more than 8 months in connection with an FIR under Sections 409, 381, 420, 465, 467, 468, 201 IPC and Section 13(1)A of the PC Act. The case concerned allegations of theft/misappropriation at a bank’s gold vault. Only 2 of 37 witnesses had been examined, the challan had been presented, and there was no evidence of involvement in other cases. |
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
- Clarifies that extended pre-trial detention, especially when the trial is expected to be delayed due to many witnesses yet to be examined, infringes the right to liberty under Article 21.
- Expressly recognizes that bail cannot be denied merely due to seriousness of allegations if the prosecution has not demonstrated risk of misuse or tampering.
- Lists detailed bail conditions to mitigate prosecution concerns regarding evidence tampering or absconding.
- Confirms that the order on bail does not prejudice the merits of the case.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over 8 months with only 2 of 37 prosecution witnesses examined, indicating significant trial delay.
- There were no allegations or evidence suggesting that the petitioner was involved in any other criminal case.
- The petitioner’s potential to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses was addressed by imposing strict bail conditions.
- The court emphasized that continued incarceration, under these circumstances, would amount to a violation of the petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The grant of bail was made conditional upon compliance with specific safeguards, reinforcing the balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice.
- The judgment explicitly clarified that all observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not impact the ongoing trial.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner has been in custody for more than 8 months.
- Allegations (such as involvement in the vault theft) are false, as opening the gold vault required dual authorization.
- Accused not involved in any other criminal case.
- Prosecution witnesses (including AGM) affirmed the procedural safeguards.
- Only 2 of 37 prosecution witnesses have been examined, leading to an anticipated lengthy trial process.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed the bail on grounds of specific allegations of misappropriation and theft by the petitioner.
- Acknowledged the stage of the case and that the petitioner was not involved in other cases.
- State could not controvert the petitioner’s submissions regarding the trial delay or lack of prior criminal record.
Factual Background
The case arose from an FIR registered on 19.09.2024 under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, a bank official, for alleged misappropriation and theft of gold ornaments from a bank vault. The procedural safeguards for accessing the vault involved dual control and signatures. The petitioner has been in custody for over 8 months, during which only 2 out of 37 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The charge sheet was filed and charges framed during this period.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition was filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for regular bail.
- Relevant offences charged included Sections 409, 381, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 201 IPC and Section 13(1)A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- The judgment invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the interpretation that personal liberty cannot be curtailed indefinitely in the face of trial delays.
- The order included detailed bail conditions as a statutory safeguard for trial integrity.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court allowed an amendment to the petition to add Section 201 IPC in the headnote and prayer clause.
- Detailed bail conditions were enumerated to ensure the protection of the prosecution’s interests while safeguarding the petitioner’s constitutional rights.
- Clarified that any violation of the bail conditions would give the State liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established bail principles and constitutional rights under Article 21, rather than setting aside or creating new precedent.