-
by Admin
18 February 2026 3:03 AM
Bail Is the Rule, Jail the Exception—Keeping Accused Behind Bars Indefinitely Violates Article 21- Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused charged under multiple serious provisions including Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 379B, and 325 IPC, as well as Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, noting the absence of specific injury attributed to the petitioner, his clean antecedents, and the prolonged pre-trial incarceration.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, delivering the order, declared: “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception, and it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
“70,000 Rupees Allegedly Robbed, Eye Injury Caused—But No Allegation Against Petitioner Personally”
The FIR dated 30.07.2023, lodged by Sagar, the complainant, detailed a violent episode involving armed assault and robbery. According to the narrative, as Sagar and his cousin Vikas walked near a transformer in Village Fatehpur Billoch, they were surrounded by a group including Manish, Mohit, Mulla, Deepak, and others. It was alleged that:
“Deepak attacked the complainant on the right side of the face with full force, causing permanent loss of vision in the right eye. Mohit hit him again, snatched ₹70,000 and threatened to kill them.”
However, the Court took note that no injury was specifically attributed to Manish, and he was not the one accused of either the grievous injury or the robbery.
“Petitioner Behind Bars for 8 Months, No Prior Record—Trial Yet to Begin Despite Framing of Charges”
The State, while opposing bail, argued the seriousness of charges. But the Court, examining the custody certificate, observed: “The petitioner is behind bars for 8 months and is not involved in any other case, meaning thereby he is a person of clean antecedents.”
It further noted: “The investigation is complete, challan stands presented on 21.10.2024, charges framed on 04.02.2025, and out of 28 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.”
This, the Court held, necessitated release, as continued detention would be a denial of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.
“Long Custody Without Trial Undermines Criminal Jurisprudence”: Court Echoes Supreme Court in Dataram Singh
Justice Moudgil invoked the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 RCR (Criminal) 131, reaffirming that: “The grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of.”
The High Court reiterated that pre-conviction detention must not become punishment by default, especially in cases where:
• The accused has no criminal history
• No evidence of tampering with witnesses or non-cooperation exists
• Trial is nowhere near conclusion
“Detention Must Not Be Used to Circumvent Delayed Trials”: Right to Liberty Reinforced
Citing Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98, the Court stressed: “Right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
It further reasoned that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for an uncertain period when he is not a flight risk, nor a threat to the investigation.
Allowing the petition, the Court directed: “The petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.”
It clarified that the order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
This judgment underscores the constitutional safeguard against prolonged pre-trial detention, especially where accused are not primary perpetrators, and investigations are over. Reaffirming the balance between individual liberty and criminal procedure, the Court sent a clear message that jails must not become default detention centres for undertrials awaiting trial.
Date of Decision: 21 March 2025
