Pre-Trial Custody Cannot Become Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Drug Overdose Death Case

“When undertrial prisoners are detained indefinitely, Article 21 stands violated — personal liberty is too precious a constitutional value to be denied without compelling cause.” - Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a reportable judgment authored by Justice Anoop Chitkara, allowed the bail petition of Manpreet Singh alias Mani, holding that prolonged pre-trial incarceration for over two and a half years in a case of alleged drug overdose death amounted to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that while the allegations against the petitioner under Sections 304, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were serious, the indefinite detention of an undertrial with no prior criminal record and uncertain trial timelines “cannot be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.”

Justice Chitkara emphatically stated, “Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused is too precious a value of our constitutional system to be curtailed casually. The curial power to negate it must be exercised with a lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community.”

“Bail Is the Rule, Jail the Exception — Court Applies Article 21 to Pre-Trial Detention under New BNSS”

The petitioner had approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking regular bail in an FIR registered at Police Station B-Division, Amritsar, for offences relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

According to the FIR, the deceased, Sunny Mishal, died of a drug overdose after allegedly consuming intoxicants with the petitioner and friends during a stay at Chaudhary Home Stay Hotel, Amritsar. The prosecution contended that the petitioner and others had administered the substance excessively, causing Sunny’s death.

However, the investigation revealed no signs of external injury, and the cause of death was traced to overdose — though whether the consumption was voluntary or forced remained unclear.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Munish Garg, urged that the accused had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since March 11, 2023, amounting to over two years and five months. Further incarceration, he argued, would “convert pre-trial detention into punishment before guilt is established.”

“Custody of 2 Years and 5 Months Is Enough — Liberty Cannot Be Lost in the Wait for Justice”

Justice Chitkara’s reasoning focused on the constitutional dimension of bail, observing that the philosophy of bail lies at the heart of the presumption of innocence. He observed:

“In deciding bail applications, the delay in concluding trial must be considered. Often, this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore the years of life spent in custody?”

The Court declared that indefinite detention of undertrials amounts to an affront to Article 21, reiterating the principles laid down in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor.

“When undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated,” the Court observed, adding that “personal liberty should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.”

“Bail Conditions Must Reform, Not Restrain — Proportionality Is the Guiding Principle”

Granting bail, the Court imposed strict yet reformative conditions, drawing guidance from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022 INSC 735).

Quoting the apex court, Justice Chitkara noted:

“The bail conditions imposed by the Court must have a nexus to the purpose they seek to serve and must also be proportional. Conditions that result in deprivation of liberty must be eschewed.”

Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be released upon furnishing personal and surety bonds or a fixed deposit of ₹10,000 to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

He was further directed to surrender all firearms within fifteen days, avoid any contact with witnesses or the victim’s family, and strictly comply with all court dates and statutory obligations. Violation of any condition would entitle the State or the complainant to seek cancellation of bail.

The Court underscored that these conditions were designed not merely to restrain but to reform and reintegrate the accused, giving him “another chance to course-correct and re-enter society as a responsible citizen.”

“Law of Bail Reflects the Soul of Liberty — Pre-Trial Custody Cannot Mirror Conviction”

The Court took note that the petitioner’s connection to the alleged act was primarily circumstantial, based on his presence and subsequent conduct, with no clear proof of forced administration of intoxicants.

Justice Chitkara reflected:

“There is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime; however, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.”

Citing the Division Bench ruling in Amit Rana v. State of Haryana (CRM-18469-2025), the Court also directed that downloaded copies of bail orders must be accepted to prevent administrative delays in restoring liberty.

“A Constitutionally Conscious Order — Bail as an Instrument of Liberty, Not Leniency”

In conclusion, Justice Chitkara’s judgment stands as a reaffirmation of the human-rights-oriented interpretation of bail within the framework of Article 21 and the BNSS. The order harmonizes judicial discretion with the fundamental ethos of liberty, emphasizing that justice delayed in granting bail is liberty denied.

By granting bail to Manpreet Singh @ Mani, the Court once again underscored that “pre-trial incarceration cannot become a substitute for punishment”, and that the State’s duty to prosecute must not override the individual’s right to live free until proven guilty.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2025