The court reiterated that second/successive regular bail petitions are maintainable in law when there is substantial change in circumstances, and that extended undertrial incarceration without substantial trial progress – even in serious economic offences – warrants bail citing Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment consolidates and applies established Supreme Court and High Court precedent and is binding in its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/17348/2025 of THOGATI BADRINATH Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010494922025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana; strong persuasive authority elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law (Bail Jurisprudence, BNSS 2023, Article 21) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court clarified that deprivation of liberty pending trial is exceptional, not the norm, even where allegations are grave. Second or successive regular bail petitions are legally maintainable on showing substantial change in circumstances, such as prolonged custody and lack of trial progress. The seriousness of the offence does not automatically justify indefinite incarceration as an undertrial; Article 21’s mandate for personal liberty and speedy trial applies regardless of the charge’s nature. Bail should be granted if there is no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence and trial delay is due to prosecution or systemic reasons, not the accused. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The FIR alleged that the complainant invested over ₹1 crore in an online investment scam via social media, acting on representations from the accused and others and suffering a total loss exceeding ₹1,09,87,978/-. The petitioner was arrested 15.05.2024, in custody for over 1 year and 5 months, with no other FIRs against him, and trial showing no progress (none of six prosecution witnesses examined). The previous bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn. |
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 the maintainability of second/successive bail petitions in law—even when prior pleas are dismissed as withdrawn, not pressed, or on merits—if there is substantial change in circumstances.
- Clarifies that prolonged undertrial detention without trial progress, especially absent risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, strongly supports grant of bail, even in high-value economic offences.
- Stresses that seriousness of the offence alone cannot override the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21.
- Practical checklist of bail conditions imposed—no misuse, no tampering, presence at trial, no offences while on bail, surrender passport, provide mobile number, and prohibition on trial delay.
- Reiterates that “punishment begins after conviction” and pretrial incarceration is an exception, not the general rule.
- Lawyers should argue Article 21 violation when there is delay in trial and show that the accused’s custody period is substantial without progress.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recited canonical Supreme Court precedents, notably Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Gurcharan Singh, and Sanjay Chandra, which establish the object of bail as securing appearance at trial, and that pretrial incarceration is justified only by necessity, not the gravity of the charge alone.
- The court quoted from Javeed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra to emphasise that right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be denied even in serious crimes, and that continued undertrial custody violates constitutional rights.
- Applying its own precedent (Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana), the court listed principles for maintainability and grant of second/successive bail petitions, highlighting that such replications are lawful when significant, substantive changes in circumstances are shown.
- Noted that petitioner’s continued incarceration for over 1 year, 5 months with no trial progress and no other criminal involvement constituted such changed circumstances.
- The court found no risk of absconding or evidence tampering by the petitioner.
- Concluded that, under the facts and established jurisprudence, further detention was not justified, and granted bail subject to standard conditions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner is in custody since 15.05.2024.
- Argues false implication; petitioner himself is a victim and was used by co-accused.
- Maintains case is triable by Magistrate.
- Cites extended custody (over 1 year 5 months) without substantive trial progress.
- Prays for regular bail.
State
- Opposes grant of bail on grounds of seriousness of allegations.
- Submits custody certificate.
- Argues petitioner does not deserve bail concession due to gravity of offence.
Factual Background
The case arose from an FIR alleging that the complainant was enticed through social media to participate in an investment scheme, leading to total losses exceeding ₹1,09,87,978/-. The scheme involved fraudulent inducements and was operated via multiple WhatsApp groups and online platforms. The petitioner was implicated along with others and arrested on 15.05.2024. He remained in custody for over 1 year and 5 months, with the trial showing no substantive progress (no prosecution witness examined to date). The previous bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
- The court dealt with Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), addressing the grant of regular bail.
- Interpreted the statute in harmony with Article 21 of the Constitution, drawing from established Supreme Court precedent on procedural fairness, necessity of custody, and presumption of innocence.
- Applied principles regarding the maintainability of second/successive regular bail petitions, relying on judicial discretion to assess “substantial change in circumstances.”
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Affirmed that second/successive bail petitions are procedurally maintainable if there is substantial, effective, and consequential change in circumstances since the last petition.
- Outlined, through precedent (Rafiq Khan), the required reasoning and methodology for courts to transparently decide successive bail petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment consolidates and applies established Supreme Court and High Court precedents on bail and Article 21.