Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on the Gravity of Offence: P&H HC Grants Bail in Cop-Murder Case

"To be a part of unlawful assembly is an allegation — not a conviction. Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the very foundation of personal liberty under Article 21" – Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused in a high-profile FIR involving the murder of a police official and attempt to murder of 14 others, observing that bail must not be denied merely on the seriousness of charges when the accused stands on parity with co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail, and has undergone over two years of custody without any prior criminal antecedents.

Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, while allowing the bail application under Section 439 CrPC, emphasized the constitutional mandate to balance societal interest with the individual’s right to liberty, particularly in the backdrop of prolonged pre-trial detention and non-distinguishable role from co-accused already on bail.

“Parity Is Not An Empty Form: Law Cannot Be Applied Arbitrarily”

The petitioner, Manjit Pal Singh, was arrested on 24.11.2023 in connection with FIR No. 238 dated 23.11.2023, registered under a string of grave provisions — including Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 120-B, 201, 115 IPC and Arms Act — following a violent confrontation between a Nihang group and Punjab Police during a patrolling deployment at Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

According to the FIR, over 35–40 armed individuals allegedly attacked the police with swords, datars, spears, and firearms, resulting in the death of one PHG official, Jaspal Singh, and injuries to 14 other police personnel. The prosecution specifically alleged that the petitioner was part of the mob and had inflicted injury on ASI Ashok Kumar with a gandasa (a sharp-edged weapon).

MLR Does Not Match Ocular Version: Medical Evidence Casts Doubt on Attribution of Injury

The Court, however, took judicial notice of the Medical Legal Report (MLR) of the injured ASI, which showed only minor injuries — a red bruise on the leg and some swelling — not consistent with the severity one would expect from a gandasa blow. While the allegation attributed a direct role to the petitioner, the actual injuries recorded failed to corroborate the alleged mode or gravity of attack.

The Court observed, “The MLR of ASI Ashok Kumar mentioned regarding the No.1 was a red bruise on the right leg whereas injuries No.2 and 3 were regarding the pain and swelling.”

Two Years in Custody Without Trial: Personal Liberty Cannot Be Put on Indefinite Hold

The petitioner had been in custody for over two years and one month as of 12.01.2026, with no previous criminal record. Noting the delay in trial and lack of antecedents, the Court held continued incarceration would amount to punitive detention before guilt is established.

It stated, “The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Thus, keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.”

Crucial Co-Accused Already on Bail: State Offers No Distinction

Perhaps most significantly, the Court noted that two co-accused — Gurinder Singh and Iqbal Singh — were already granted bail by the same Court on December 10, 2025 (CRM-M-24331-2025 and CRM-M-62309-2025). The State failed to demonstrate any distinguishing role or aggravating conduct specific to Manjit Pal Singh that could justify differential treatment.

The principle of parity was thus held to be squarely applicable. The Court reaffirmed that bail jurisprudence is guided not by isolated allegations but by uniformity and fairness in application of law.

Court Refrains from Prejudging Trial: No Comments on Merits

In line with the constitutional caution governing bail hearings, the High Court clarified that its observations were strictly confined to the context of bail, stating, “This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case.”

Bail Granted Subject to Conditions

The Court allowed the bail petition, directing that the petitioner be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Court also ensured that “Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

The High Court’s order reflects a principled reaffirmation of Article 21 rights, holding that liberty cannot be denied merely on the gravity of allegations, especially when co-accused have been granted bail, medical evidence is inconclusive, and the trial is nowhere near completion. The case underscores the judiciary’s delicate balancing act in ensuring personal liberty while upholding public order, even in sensitive cases involving attacks on police personnel.

Date of Decision: 13 January 2026