No Recovery, No Criminal Record, No Justification for Continued Incarceration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in NDPS and Arms Act Case

Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Shamsher Singh alias Munshi alias Bunty and Rupinder Singh alias Bhinda, who had been incarcerated since September 23, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 172, registered at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran. The single-judge bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul ruled that the petitioners had no previous criminal history, no contraband was recovered from them, and the trial was progressing at an extremely slow pace, with only one out of twenty-one prosecution witnesses examined so far. The Court observed:

"The petitioners have been in custody since 23.09.2023, and till date, only one prosecution witness out of the twenty-one cited has been examined. The possibility of the trial concluding in the near future looks remote."

Holding that "further incarceration would serve no useful purpose," the Court granted bail to both petitioners, subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

"No Recovery of Contraband, No Injury Caused": Court Finds Case Against Petitioners Weak

The petitioners were accused of being part of a gang allegedly involved in criminal activities, including snatching, robbery, and offenses under the NDPS Act. The prosecution claimed that a co-accused, Avtar Singh alias Sahil, fired at a police officer (Inspector Prabhjit Singh) but no injury was sustained by the officer.

The Court noted that the prosecution had failed to produce any evidence directly implicating the petitioners in the alleged offenses. The State Counsel, upon a direct query from the Court, conceded that no contraband was recovered from the petitioners, though they were alleged to have been carrying datar (traditional weapons) at the time of their arrest.

"As per the case of the prosecution, a secret information was received that the petitioners were part of a gang involved in criminal activities. However, it is a matter of record that the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents, which clearly points to their false implication in the present case," the petitioners' counsel argued.

Further, the State failed to provide a cogent explanation for why the petitioners should remain behind bars when there was no recovery from them and they were not accused of causing any injuries.

Slow Trial and Fundamental Right to Liberty: Court Intervenes

Expressing concern over judicial delays, the Court highlighted that despite the petitioners being in custody for over four months, the prosecution had only managed to examine one witness out of twenty-one. The Court observed:

"Since the investigation in the present case is complete, and charges were framed thereafter on 28.08.2024, further incarceration of the petitioners would serve no useful purpose, as the possibility of trial concluding in the near future looks remote."

The Court reaffirmed the principle that pre-trial detention should not become a form of punishment, particularly when the case against the accused lacks substance.

Bail Granted With Conditions, Warning Against Misuse

Allowing the bail petitions, the Court directed the release of the petitioners upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

However, the Court cautioned that any misuse of the bail conditions would result in cancellation:

"Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same."

Significance of the Judgment: Upholding the Right to Fair Trial and Liberty

This judgment underscores the fundamental principle that mere allegations, without recovery or substantive evidence, cannot justify prolonged pre-trial detention. The Court’s intervention highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the constitutional right to liberty and ensuring that accused individuals are not unjustly kept behind bars due to procedural delays.

By granting bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced that criminal jurisprudence must balance public interest with individual rights, ensuring that bail is the rule and jail is the exception in cases where there is no concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

Date of Decision: 23/01/2025