IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process

Bail is a rule, jail is an exception: P&H High Court cites while granting bail due to prolonged trial delays.

02 October 2024 12:39 PM

By: sayum


Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Sukhwinder Singh alias Jang, who had been in custody since December 2020 in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The court ruled that the prolonged incarceration without significant progress in the trial violated the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The case arose from FIR No. 212/2020 registered on December 20, 2020, at Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana, where 755 kg of poppy husk was allegedly recovered from a truck. The truck belonged to co-accused Amarjit Singh, and was driven by another co-accused Navjot Singh alias Nanna. Sukhwinder Singh was arrested based on a disclosure statement from a co-accused but had no direct recovery of contraband made from him.

Counsel for Sukhwinder Singh, Mr. P.S. Sekhon, argued that his client was being subjected to prolonged incarceration with no substantial evidence recovered from him. He pointed out that Sukhwinder's co-accused, including the truck owner Amarjit Singh, driver Navjot Singh, and Parkash Singh alias Baggar, had already been released on regular bail. The petitioner had already spent over three years and eight months in custody without significant trial progress.

Trial Delays: Only six out of 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined after charges were framed in March 2022, indicating that the trial would likely take much longer to conclude.

No Direct Involvement: Sukhwinder was arrested only on the basis of a co-accused's statement, and no recovery of contraband was made from him.

State’s Opposition:

State Counsel opposed the bail application, citing that Sukhwinder Singh had a prior conviction under the NDPS Act and was a habitual offender. The State contended that his criminal record warranted keeping him in custody.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil reviewed the facts and ruled in favor of granting bail, citing various legal precedents. The court acknowledged the criminal antecedents of the petitioner but held that this should not be the sole ground for denying bail, especially when the trial had made slow progress.

The court relied on the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, as well as the Supreme Court's judgment in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018), which emphasized the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception."

Speedy Trial Rights: The court referred to the Rajender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022) decision, noting that prolonged detention without a swift trial infringes on the accused's rights. The court underscored that the petitioner had already been incarcerated for over three years, and keeping him in custody indefinitely would violate constitutional guarantees.

No Recovery from the Petitioner: The court highlighted that no direct recovery of contraband was made from Sukhwinder Singh, further strengthening his case for bail.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Sukhwinder Singh, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner must furnish bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The petitioner must comply with all further legal proceedings and conditions set by the trial court.

This decision reinforces the principle of bail as a fundamental right, especially when trials are delayed, and there is no substantial evidence linking the accused directly to the crime. The court balanced the petitioner's criminal history with his right to liberty, ensuring that justice is not denied through prolonged incarceration.

Date of Decision: September 25, 2024

Sukhwinder Singh alias Jang vs. State of Punjab

Similar News