Pre-Trial Custody Cannot Be a Tool for Vengeance When the Accused Held No Weapon, Caused No Injury, and Was Named Only Later – Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pre-Arrest

“Bail Is the Rule, Jail Is the Exception Even in Murder Cases If Role Is Marginal” – In a notable judgment delivered by Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea of a 67-year-old man accused in a murder case—holding that where no overt act or weapon is attributed to the accused and his name appears only through a supplementary statement, custodial interrogation is not justified.

Justice Anoop Chitkara, presiding over the matter in Chhinder Singh @ Shinder v. State of Punjab [CRM-M-15080-2025], observed that “pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing” and granted pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

"The Petitioner Was Empty-Handed, No Injury Was Attributed To Him" – Court Rebuffs Arrest in Supplementary Allegation Without Overt Act

The FIR, registered at Police Station Jodhan, Ludhiana, under Sections 302, 323, and 34 IPC, was based on the complaint of Gurmeet Kaur, whose husband Shingara Singh was allegedly beaten to death during a heated street dispute involving neighbours over a drainage blockage. Initially, the main accused were Jagdish Singh @ Pinku and his mother Jaswant Kaur, named in the FIR for causing the fatal injuries with a rod and stick respectively.

However, the petitioner, Chhinder Singh, was not named in the FIR. He was implicated later in a supplementary statement, where he was alleged to have caught the deceased's beard and shouted an instigating “lalkara” (incitement) that led to the fatal blow.

Rejecting the necessity of arrest for such a role, the Court held: “Initially, the petitioner, who is 67 years old, was not named in the FIR. He was empty-handed at the time of incident and the role attributed to the petitioner is that he caught hold the victim from his beard, however, no injury has been attributed to him. As such, the petitioner is entitled to bail.” [Para 7]

The Court further cautioned against the misuse of the criminal process for vengeance through belated statements.

“Pre-Trial Custody Should Not Become a Substitute for Punishment” – Custodial Interrogation Not Justified in Absence of Evidentiary Need

The Court delved into the principle that bail jurisprudence must be rooted in constitutional liberty, not guided by the severity of the offence alone. It reaffirmed that pre-arrest detention cannot be permitted “unless justified by compelling necessity.”

“An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pretrial incarceration,” said Justice Chitkara, adding that even if prosecution evidence may be sufficient to frame charges, it does not automatically warrant arrest.

The judgment repeatedly emphasized that liberty is not contingent on the seriousness of the accusation but on the nature of evidence and the role attributed.

The Court was unequivocal:
“Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, role attributed and age of petitioner and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage.” [Para 9]

“Bail Is Not a Precedent for Co-Accused with Greater Roles” – Court Distinguishes Between Principal and Peripheral Accused

Justice Chitkara clarified that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would not set a precedent for co-accused facing more serious allegations.

The judgment noted:
“The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the petitioner’s bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-accused with a higher role.” [Para 10]

This clear separation between peripheral and principal roles ensures that the discretion exercised in bail matters remains nuanced and fact-specific.

In allowing the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court strongly reaffirmed that arrest is not a default judicial response to every accusation, even in cases as serious as murder, when the accused is neither armed nor directly involved in the assault, and is brought in only through subsequent improvement in statements.

Justice Chitkara concluded:
“Without commenting on the case’s merits… the petitioner makes a case for bail.” [Para 9]

The decision reinforces the fundamental principle that the criminal justice system must guard against pre-trial incarceration becoming punitive, especially when the allegations are supplementary, the role marginal, and the accused elderly and unarmed.

Date of Decision: 12 May 2025