Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed to the Slow March of Trial – Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in SC/ST Act Case Citing Article 21 Violations

“Even Under SC/ST Act, Bail Can Be Granted Where Investigation Is Over and Parties Have Compromised” – High Court Notes Detention Beyond Investigation Is Punitive, Not Preventive. Punjab and Haryana High Court granting regular bail to a man accused of serious offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including allegations of house trespass, mob violence, and attempt to murder. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that continued incarceration after completion of investigation and in the face of a settlement between the parties would violate the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.

“Keeping the appellant in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” observed the Court, underlining the need to balance statutory restrictions with constitutional freedoms.

The appellant, Avtar Singh, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 19 dated 04.02.2025, registered at Police Station Rori, Sirsa (Haryana), involving multiple offences under the BNS, SC/ST Act, and Arms Act. The complaint stemmed from a series of escalating incidents beginning with a petty quarrel over a fodder trolley, culminating—according to the FIR—in a violent nighttime attack by a group of 15–20 individuals, including the appellant, who allegedly broke into the complainant’s house, fired gunshots, and attempted to leak a gas cylinder with homicidal intent.

During the investigation, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 109 BNS were dropped, and the final report under Section 173 CrPC was filed. The appellant, who had been in custody since 06 February 2025, approached the High Court under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, seeking regular bail pending trial.

Liberty, Bail and Trial Delay

The High Court made clear that in criminal justice, pre-trial detention must not become a substitute for punishment. Justice Brar noted:

“No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/appellant. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial.”

The Court emphasized that bail cannot be mechanically denied merely because the trial is pending, especially when the investigation is complete, and no substantial progress in trial has occurred.

Drawing from the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Court reiterated:

“Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners... Of this category, majority may not even be required to be arrested... There is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. Arrest is a draconian measure... and thus to be used sparingly.”

The High Court found that keeping the appellant behind bars, in the absence of any compelling reason or pending investigation, amounted to a "punitive measure divorced from the preventive purpose of pre-trial custody."

SC/ST Act and the Bail Bar – Court Clarifies It’s Not Absolute

The prosecution opposed the bail on the ground that the offence involved Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which imposes a higher threshold for grant of bail. However, the Court clarified that the bar to bail under the SC/ST Act is not absolute, especially after investigation is over.

“Once the investigation is complete and the complainant has no objection, bail may be granted in appropriate circumstances,” observed the Court, relying on Satender Kumar Antil, Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P..

Further, the Court noted that the complainant, through counsel, had affirmed the fact of compromise and expressed no objection to the grant of bail. A petition to quash the FIR based on the compromise was already pending before the High Court.

Compromise, Lack of Medical Evidence, and Overstated Allegations

While the FIR painted a picture of a coordinated attack involving weapons, injury, and attempted murder, the Court noted that the third incident—where the appellant was allegedly involved—had no supporting medico-legal report. In light of this, the Court expressed caution in accepting such allegations at face value, especially when the parties had themselves agreed to settle the matter and no further investigation remained.

“The FIR relates to three separate incidents and the appellant is linked only to the third. No medical report supports this part of the allegation.”

The Court also addressed the prosecution’s claim that the appellant had other criminal antecedents, clarifying:

“The involvement of the appellant in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail,” reaffirming the Supreme Court’s holding in Prabhakar Tewari.

In a judgment reinforcing the centrality of Article 21 protections, the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the appellant, ruling that the mere pendency of trial cannot justify prolonged incarceration, especially when the investigation is complete, no medical evidence supports the key allegations, and the complainant does not object to bail.

“Incarceration without trial is punishment without conviction. Our criminal jurisprudence does not permit that,” Justice Brar implied throughout the ruling.

The appellant was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Date of Decision: 24 July 2025