MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News