Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely On Grounds Of Being A Repeat Offender: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Accused With 9 Past FIRs

“Article 21 Cannot Be Compromised Merely Because Accused Has A Criminal History” – Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an undertrial facing his tenth criminal case, asserting that the liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be sacrificed solely on the basis of prior FIRs. The Court ruled that bail jurisprudence demands individualized assessment, not mechanical rejection based on criminal history.

The petitioner, Sukhjinder Singh @ Bittu, had sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 22 and 61 of the NDPS Act, relating to alleged illegal possession of narcotic substances.

“Every Accused Has A Right To Be Treated Innocent Until Proven Guilty” – High Court Warns Against Prejudicial Denial of Bail

The core contention raised by the State was that the petitioner had as many as nine previous criminal cases against him, and that his conduct showed a tendency toward habitual criminal behavior. Therefore, it was argued, he did not deserve the concession of bail.

Rejecting this blanket approach, the Court emphasized:

“Mere registration of FIRs or pendency of criminal cases cannot be treated as gospel truth of the guilt of the accused, unless the allegations stand proved beyond doubt.”

Justice Anoop Chitkara, delivering the judgment, cautioned against punitive denial of liberty and observed that bail cannot be withheld as a pretrial punishment. The Court remarked:

“This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that every accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This presumption cannot be casually erased based on past allegations.”

“Past Cases Cannot Be a Substitute for Evidence in Present Case” – Court Applies Bail Parameters Strictly

The Court thoroughly reviewed the custodial status, nature of allegations, and stage of the investigation. It found that:

• The investigation was complete

• Challan had already been filed

• The accused was no longer required for custodial interrogation

• There was no material showing the accused attempting to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses

The Court clarified:

“Liberty of a citizen cannot be sacrificed solely on the grounds of past involvement, particularly when no compelling need exists for continued custody.”

The order further stated that merely branding someone as a “habitual offender” cannot override the principles of proportionality and fairness embedded in the bail jurisprudence.

Conditions Imposed To Ensure Compliance

While granting regular bail, the Court imposed standard bail conditions to safeguard the integrity of the trial. It directed the petitioner to:

• Not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence

• Not commit any similar offence during the pendency of the trial

• Appear before the trial court on all dates without default

Failure to comply would result in cancellation of bail.

This judgment contributes to the evolving bail jurisprudence in India where frequent offenders are not automatically excluded from constitutional protections. It reiterates that bail applications must be evaluated on the merits of the case at hand, and criminal antecedents alone are not a valid basis for indefinite incarceration.

The ruling upholds the constitutional ethos of personal liberty, especially under Article 21, and warns against prejudicial overreach by investigating agencies in opposing bail solely based on past records.

Date of Decision: 27 August 2025