No Grounds For Continued Incarceration If Trial Not Likely To Conclude Soon: Supreme Court Grants Bail In Rape & IT Act Case

"Taking the said cross-examination into account, we are of the opinion that no grounds are made out for continued incarceration of the appellant pending conclusion of the trial," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that prolonged incarceration of an accused is not justified when there is no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the continued detention of an individual, who has been in custody for a substantial period while the prosecution has only examined a fraction of its witnesses, warrants the grant of regular bail.

The appellant, Parveen Malik, approached the Apex Court challenging an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had denied him regular bail. He was arrested on September 10, 2023, in connection with an FIR registered at the Women Police Station, Jind, involving grave allegations of sexual assault, stalking, voyeurism, and extortion under various sections of the IPC and the IT Act.

The primary question before the Court was whether the appellant was entitled to be released on regular bail in view of his prolonged period of custody and the current status of the trial proceedings. The Court also considered whether the progress of the trial and the nature of the evidence recorded thus far justified continued pre-trial detention.

Trial Not Likely To Conclude In Near Future

The Supreme Court closely examined the status of the trial as presented by the State of Haryana in its counter-affidavit. The bench noted a significant disparity between the total number of witnesses and those who had actually deposed before the Trial Court.

The Court highlighted that the State’s own records indicated that only 2 out of the 22 listed witnesses had been examined so far. Given this slow pace of the proceedings, the bench concluded that the trial was unlikely to reach its logical end anytime soon.

"The State of Haryana filed its counter affidavit. It reflects that only 2 out of the 22 listed witnesses have been examined till date. There is, thus, no possibility of the trial concluding any time in the near future," the bench observed.

Consideration Of Complainant’s Cross-Examination

During the proceedings, the counsel for the complainant stated that they would not be filing a separate reply and suggested that the Court perusal the cross-examination of the victim already conducted before the Trial Court.

The bench took this evidence into account while determining the necessity of further incarceration. After evaluating the status of the testimony and the time already served by the appellant since September 2023, the Court found that a case for bail was clearly made out.

"Taking the said cross-examination into account, we are of the opinion that no grounds are made out for continued incarceration of the appellant, Parveen Malik @ Parveen Kumar Malik, pending conclusion of the trial," the Court held.

Strict Conditions Imposed To Protect Witnesses

While allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court emphasized that the liberty of the appellant would be subject to stringent conditions to ensure the integrity of the trial.

The Court specifically directed that the appellant must not attempt to influence or intimidate any witnesses. Furthermore, a strict restraining order was placed on the appellant regarding any contact with the complainant or her family members.

"In addition thereto, the appellant... shall not intimidate or attempt to influence any witness during the course of the trial. He shall not approach the complainant, respondent No. 2, or seek to contact her through any other family member," the order stated.

Appellant Directed To Ensure Trial Progress

The Supreme Court also warned the appellant against adopting any dilatory tactics that might further hamper the judicial process. The bench mandated full cooperation with the Trial Court to ensure that the remaining witnesses are examined without further delay.

The bench clarified that its observations were limited strictly to the question of bail and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the criminal case. The final terms and conditions of the bail are to be determined by the concerned Trial Court.

"The appellant... shall cooperate during the course of the trial and shall not delay the proceedings therein," the bench added.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order dated January 20, 2026. Considering the appellant’s custody since late 2023 and the fact that 20 witnesses remained to be examined, the Court directed his release on bail to prevent indefinite pre-trial detention.

Date of Decision: 24 April 2026