Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in 2018 Attempt to Culpable Homicide Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Lakhvir Singh in a case registered under Sections 308, 325, 323, 201, and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner invoked Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking bail in connection with FIR No. 85 dated July 6, 2018, registered at Police Station Sadar Bathinda. Justice Sandeep Moudgil allowed the petition while emphasizing constitutional guarantees under Article 21 and the presumption of innocence for undertrial prisoners.
The case stemmed from a physical altercation on June 26, 2018, concerning a land boundary dispute. The FIR was filed 10 days after the incident. The petitioner was accused of causing a fist injury to the complainant, which the Court observed did not satisfy the requirements of Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide). The medico-legal report also failed to substantiate grievous or life-threatening injuries linked to the petitioner.
The Court noted the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, stating that such delays can weaken the prosecution’s case, especially in matters of serious allegations.
The petitioner had already undergone more than seven months in custody, and the trial had yet to commence due to pending procedural steps, including framing of charges. The Court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and highlighted that prolonged pretrial incarceration without clear justification is unwarranted.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s rulings in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that prolonged detention violates the rights of undertrial prisoners and exacerbates overcrowding in prisons.
Reaffirming the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the Court underscored the need for a balanced approach to bail decisions. It emphasized that incarceration must be reserved for cases involving clear risks of witness tampering, evidence destruction, or absconding. The petitioner’s lack of a criminal record and cooperation during the investigation further strengthened the case for bail.
The Court granted bail to the petitioner on the condition of furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Duty Magistrate. While granting bail, Justice Moudgil clarified that the order should not influence the trial or be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
This judgment highlights the Court’s commitment to ensuring personal liberty, speedy trials, and fair treatment of undertrial prisoners. By granting bail, the Court struck a balance between the petitioner’s constitutional rights and the interests of justice.
 

Date of Decision: December 9, 2024