Pre-Trial Detention Cannot Be a Punishment in Itself: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Liberty Must Not Be Denied on Mere Apprehensions" – Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Raman Kumar vs. State of Punjab, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding that pre-trial incarceration should not become a substitute for post-conviction punishment. Justice Anoop Chitkara made the interim protection absolute, emphasizing that Raman Kumar was not the main accused and that his role in the alleged offense did not justify custodial interrogation.

While the State opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offense and the need for further investigation, the court ruled that merely being part of an unlawful assembly does not warrant indefinite detention, especially when there is no allegation of non-cooperation or intimidation of witnesses.

The case stemmed from an altercation on September 30, 2024, when the complainant received a phone call from Raman Kumar asking him to meet at the Grain Market in Chaulag. The complainant, along with his brother Lakhwinder Singh and three other acquaintances, proceeded to the location, where they encountered Raman Kumar, Kamal, Seetu, Ghuda, and 9-10 unknown individuals.

The complainant alleged that Ghuda, armed with a sword (Khanda), attacked him on the right side of his head, while Raman Kumar struck his brother Lakhwinder Singh on his right elbow with a similar weapon. Seetu allegedly inflicted two more blows on Lakhwinder Singh—one on the back of his head and another on his neck. Kamal was accused of pelting stones and issuing death threats, while the remaining assailants reportedly shouted that the complainant and his brother would not be allowed to leave alive.

According to the complaint, the attackers fled when villagers arrived at the scene, after which the complainant and his brother were taken to Civil Hospital, Tanda, later referred to Hoshiarpur and Amritsar for treatment. The complaint further mentioned that attempts to reach a compromise had failed, leading to police action.

An FIR was registered on September 19, 2024, at Tanda Police Station, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), and 190 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), replacing IPC Sections 324, 506, 148, and 149.

The State strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that Raman Kumar was part of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and had personally attacked one of the victims. The prosecution contended that his custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the weapon allegedly used in the assault.

The defense countered by emphasizing that Raman Kumar was not the primary assailant and had inflicted only a non-grievous injury. It was pointed out that the petitioner had no prior criminal record, was not a flight risk, and had already been granted interim bail on December 13, 2024, without any allegation of witness intimidation or non-cooperation. The defense further argued that the State had failed to demonstrate why custodial interrogation was necessary when the investigation was already progressing.

Justice Anoop Chitkara, after reviewing the evidence, ruled in favor of granting anticipatory bail, stating: "Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The mere gravity of allegations does not justify denying anticipatory bail when the petitioner’s role is limited, and he has cooperated with the investigation."

Referring to Vikram Singh v. CBI (2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458) and Aparna Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021 SCC Online SC 230), the court reiterated the principle that: "While imposing bail conditions, courts must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. Conditions that result in the deprivation of fundamental rights must be eschewed."

Bail Granted with Conditions to Ensure Fair Trial

While granting bail, the court imposed specific conditions to ensure a fair trial, directing that Raman Kumar must surrender any firearms and ammunition within 15 days and must not enter the premises, workplace, or residence of the victims until all witness statements are recorded.

The court further clarified that: "The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so his bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the co-accused with a higher role."

The order also specified that if the petitioner failed to comply with bail conditions or engaged in any further offense, the State could move for cancellation of bail.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling in Raman Kumar vs. State of Punjab underscores a fundamental principle of criminal law—bail is a rule, and jail is an exception. The court ensured that the accused's rights were protected without compromising the integrity of the investigation.

By rejecting the State’s demand for custodial interrogation, the court reaffirmed that pre-trial detention should never serve as punishment before conviction. As the judgment aptly noted:

"Liberty must not be denied on mere apprehensions. A fair trial demands that punishment must follow conviction, not precede it."

Date of Decision: 05 March 2025