The High Court reaffirms that the existence of prior convictions or seriousness of the alleged offence cannot be the sole grounds for denial of bail; courts must consider the facts of each case, the status of investigation, and the rights under Article 21. This judgment follows binding Supreme Court precedents and serves as authoritative guidance on bail jurisprudence, particularly for regular bail matters under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/47019/2025 of SURMUKH SINGH ALIAS SUMI Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011356552025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding in the jurisdiction; authoritative on bail principles |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Bail under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail may be denied solely due to seriousness of allegations or prior conviction(s) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court on similar bail matters |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of criminal antecedents or seriousness of the offence; the particular facts and context must be considered.
- Restates the principle that indefinite pre-trial detention undermines Article 21 rights.
- Clarifies parity: when a co-accused has already obtained bail, petitioners in similar positions are entitled to seek the same benefit unless differentiated by material facts.
- Underlines that disclosure statements by co-accused, absent further corroborative evidence, have limited probative value in bail considerations.
- Details on the application of Supreme Court precedent to regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the petitioner’s individual circumstances: non-naming in FIR, implication via co-accused’s disclosure alone (held inadmissible as per settled law), and prolonged custody with charges already framed and investigation completed.
- The Court applied the Supreme Court’s principle from Dataram Singh, reaffirming the constitutional obligation that bail is the rule and jail the exception, especially where trial is not likely to conclude soon.
- Addressed the prosecution’s objection based on prior conviction by relying on Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi’s ruling that prior criminal record alone is insufficient; the focus must be on the facts and evidentiary position in the pending case.
- Accorded importance to judicial parity, citing that when a similarly positioned co-accused is bailed, denial to another accused on like facts is unwarranted absent distinguishing circumstances.
- Finally, the Court held that continued incarceration, in the absence of compelling reasons, would amount to a violation of Article 21.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner was not named in the FIR; implication based only on co-accused’s disclosure.
- Disclosure by co-accused without corroboration is not admissible evidence.
- Delay of three days in lodging the FIR remains unexplained.
- Petitioner in custody over five months; investigation complete; trial will be lengthy.
- Bail granted to co-accused; petitioner seeks parity.
Respondent (State)
- Seriousness of offence involving robbery and conspiracy.
- Petitioner has been convicted in another case; suggested he is habitual offender.
- Opposed bail given severity and antecedents.
Factual Background
The case arises from an FIR registered after an incident at ‘B.S. Bikaner’ shop on 20.04.2024, where a masked youth allegedly committed robbery and fled with an accomplice. The FIR was filed on 23.04.2024 against unknown persons. The petitioner was implicated only through a disclosure statement by co-accused Harwinder Singh @ Kaka during interrogation. Petitioner has remained in custody since 03.11.2024. The investigation has concluded, charges framed, and a co-accused has already obtained bail.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted and applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to regular bail.
- The Court reinforced the expansive reading of Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that continued pre-trial detention must not violate personal liberty.
- No “reading down” or “reading in” of provisions reported; the focus remained on the balance between bail rights and case-specific facts under the statute.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court bail jurisprudence under Dataram Singh and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi is applied.
Citations
- Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131
- Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2012 (2) SCC 382