Co-Accused Confession Without Recovery Hit By Section 23 BSA: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail In Robbery Case

"Disclosure statements recovery of any incriminating material or discovery of fact did not take place, prima facie the abovementioned statements appear to be hit by Section-23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a notable ruling, held that a disclosure statement of a co-accused recorded in police custody without any resultant recovery or discovery of fact prima facie lacks evidentiary credibility and is hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

While granting regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to an accused charged with armed robbery, a single-judge bench of Justice Surya Partap Singh emphasized that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without active participation on the spot infringes upon an undertrial's constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The prosecution stemmed from FIR No. 10 dated January 7, 2025, registered at Police Station Sector-8, District Faridabad, under Sections 310(2), 311, 61(2), and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Sections 25 and 25(8) of the Arms Act. The complainant, a shopkeeper, alleged that four assailants entered his establishment armed with country-made pistols and a knife, robbing him of 10 kilograms of silver, gold, cash, and gems at gunpoint. The petitioner, Rahul Sharma, was arrested on November 7, 2025, solely on the allegation that he had supplied the country-made pistol to the assailants, prompting him to move the High Court in a second regular bail petition after having suffered incarceration for over eight months.

The primary question before the court was whether an accused is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS when the sole evidentiary link is an uncorroborated police-custody disclosure statement of a co-accused. The court was also called upon to determine whether the continued judicial custody of an undertrial with no active participation on the crime spot violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Co-Accused Confessions In Police Custody Suffer From Evidentiary Infirmity

Scrutinizing the record, the High Court observed that there was nothing to establish the petitioner's presence at the scene of the crime or his participation in the robbery conspiracy. The bench observed that the only material gathered by the investigating agency was the disclosure statements of co-accused persons recorded while in police custody.

The court specifically underscored that because no recovery of incriminating material or discovery of any fact took place pursuant to those statements, they were squarely hit by Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The bench noted that the investigation was already complete, nothing remained to be recovered from the petitioner's possession, and co-accused persons had already been accorded the concession of bail.

Bail Remains The Rule And Incarceration An Exception In Criminal Jurisprudence

Revisiting the foundational tenets of criminal law, Justice Singh cited the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2018) to reiterate the presumption of innocence. The bench highlighted that the grant of bail is the rule and putting an individual behind bars is an exception, observing that courts must introspect whether denial of liberty is warranted under the specific facts of a case.

The High Court further drew support from the Supreme Court's verdict in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), warning courts against treating bail proceedings as punitive exercises. The bench pointed out that given the low conviction rate, an ultimate acquittal following protracted pre-trial custody constitutes a grave miscarriage of justice that must be avoided.

"Delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued."

Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Cannot Be Defeated By Systemic Delays

Addressing the likelihood of a prolonged trial, the court placed reliance on the recent Supreme Court decisions in Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) and Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2024). The bench noted that an undertrial facing long-drawn proceedings suffers a direct infringement of the fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The bench observed that detention of the petitioner in judicial lockup would serve no purposeful objective since there was no material suggesting that the petitioner would tamper with evidence, influence prosecution witnesses, or evade the trial proceedings, notwithstanding the State's objection regarding pending cases against him.

Final Relief And Conditions Imposed By The Court

Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the High Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on regular bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court directed the petitioner not to induce, threaten, or influence any witness, to notify the trial court of any change in his residential address, and not to leave India without prior permission of the trial court.

The ruling reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention cannot be transformed into punitive custody where the prosecution relies on weak confessions devoid of recoveries under the new criminal laws. By granting bail, the High Court reaffirmed that Article 21 guarantees an unyielding shield against indefinite incarceration during trial pendency.

Date of Decision: 22 July 2026