Bail granted where the accused had been in prolonged custody, was not implicated in other cases, and co-accused had already been released—reaffirming established principles on bail, parity, and right to speedy trial; judgment serves as binding authority on similar bail petitions arising from protracted undertrial custody, especially for serious offences under the IPC.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/37136/2025 of AMAN ALIAS JAGJIT SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC010872532025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure — Bail, Indian Penal Code |
| Questions of Law | When should bail be granted in serious offences with protracted undertrial custody, especially considering parity with co-accused and Article 21 rights? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that these factors tilt the balance in favour of release on bail, subject to stringent conditions. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not specified in the judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principles of parity in bail, right to speedy trial under Article 21 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
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 long incarceration as an undertrial, without meaningful progress in prosecution’s evidence and with clean antecedents, is a strong ground for bail even in serious offences.
- Parity with co-accused previously granted bail for equal or greater alleged roles is a key consideration.
- Bail order lists detailed and practical conditions to mitigate flight risk and ensure fair trial, which may serve as precedential guidance for similar cases.
- The constitutional right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 remains central to bail determinations in protracted matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the petitioner’s prolonged period in custody (over 8 months) and the absence of previous criminal involvement.
- It was observed that similarly or more seriously accused co-accused had been granted bail after shorter periods.
- The stage of the trial supported bail: although charges were recently framed, none out of 34 prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating a foreseeable delay in trial.
- The Court weighed these factors against the serious nature of allegations and found that continuous detention would violate the petitioner’s Article 21 rights.
- Multiple strict conditions were imposed on bail to balance the interests of justice and public safety.
- The State’s opposition was considered but not found sufficient in light of the above facts and established practice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner has been falsely implicated and in custody for about 9 months.
- Co-accused who allegedly played greater roles have already been granted bail after less or similar custody periods.
- Petitioner was not involved in any other case and surrendered voluntarily.
- Delay in lodging FIR; trial has not progressed as none out of 34 PWs examined.
State
- Opposed bail on grounds of specific allegations of petitioner having inflicted a “khanjar” blow.
- Conceded petitioner was not involved in any other case and accepted factual parity with co-accused.
- No submission to distinguish petitioner’s role from that of co-accused already released on bail.
Factual Background
Petitioner was named as accused in FIR No. 111 dated 27.08.2021 at Police Station Shambhu, Patiala, under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324, 325, 341, 148, and 149 IPC for allegedly giving a “khanjar” blow causing injury to one Ashu Singh. Other co-accused, some alleged to have played graver roles, were already granted bail after less or similar periods in custody. Petitioner surrendered before the court on 06.02.2025 and had since remained in custody. Charges were framed on 15.10.2025 but trial had not commenced, with none of the 34 prosecution witnesses examined at the time of bail determination.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 439 CrPC (pertaining to bail in non-bailable offences) applied.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India was invoked, specifically concerning the right to personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial.
- The Court referred to, and applied, established legal principles concerning parity and prolongation of trial as grounds for bail.
- No narrowing or expansion of statutory interpretation was made; the decision applies established principles to the facts at hand.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court mandated a comprehensive list of bail conditions to be adhered to by the petitioner.
- Bail was expressly made subject to the right of the State to seek cancellation if any condition was violated.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment reiterates established principles on bail, parity, and Article 21 rights in protracted custody cases.