Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court Failure To Comply With Statutory Mandate Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC Renders Ex Parte Injunction Unsustainable: Karnataka High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Withdrawal of Cabinet's Recommendations for Legislative Council Nominations Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Absence of Premeditation and Motive Desertion Means More Than Physical Separation, Includes Willful Neglect: Delhi High Court Director’s Liability Under Section 138 NI Act Ends with Resignation: Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Former Director in Cheque Dishonor Case No Proof, No Ownership: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Baseless Inheritance Suit Judicial Orders of Civil Courts Not Amenable to Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction: Patna High Court Chastity of a Woman Is a Priceless Possession; Unfounded Allegations Justify Wife’s Right to Live Separately: Orissa High Court Temporary Injunction Denied Based on Unstamped and Unregistered Agreement: Madhya Pradesh High Court Temple Surplus Funds Cannot Be Used for Shopping Complex Construction: Madras High Court Bail | Evidence Is Primarily Documentary And Already Recovered, Custodial Interrogation Of The Accused Is Not Necessary: Kerala High Court Delhi High Court Directs Respondents to Secure ₹157.75 Crores in Gas Supply Dispute Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act Arrest of Woman Post-Sunset Without Prior Judicial Permission Illegal: Bombay High Court

"Pre-Trial Detention Cannot Become Punishment": Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail

26 August 2024 3:27 PM

By: sayum


The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to Ramandeep Kaur and Sandeep Singh, the primary accused in a case involving the death of Manpreet Kaur, Sandeep Singh’s wife. The court, presided over by Justice N.S. Shekhawat, highlighted the undue delay in the trial as a key reason for granting bail. Despite the serious charges under Sections 302, 494, and 34 of the IPC, the court emphasized that prolonged pre-conviction detention without significant progress in the trial undermines the right to personal liberty.

The case revolves around the mysterious death of Manpreet Kaur on September 18, 2021. Initially, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons following a statement by Gurpreet Singh, the brother of the deceased. He reported that Manpreet was struck and killed by a speeding car while walking near Samana Chungi, Patiala. However, a subsequent statement from Gurdeep Singh, a cousin of the complainant, implicated Sandeep Singh and Ramandeep Kaur, suggesting the death was a deliberate act linked to Sandeep's alleged extramarital relationship with Ramandeep.

Bail and Personal Liberty: Justice N.S. Shekhawat, while deliberating on the bail petitions, emphasized the fundamental principle that bail should be the norm, not an exception. "The object of bail is not punitive nor preventive but to ensure the accused's presence at the trial," the court noted, referring to precedents set by the Supreme Court. The judge further highlighted that keeping the accused in custody for nearly three years without significant trial progress violates the principles of justice and personal liberty.

The court took a critical view of the prosecution’s sluggish progress, noting that only 11 out of 32 witnesses had been examined in nearly three years. This significant delay, coupled with the fact that the petitioners had been in custody since September 2021, played a crucial role in the court's decision to grant bail. "Further custody of the petitioners will not serve any meaningful purpose in the present case," Justice Shekhawat remarked.

The court's decision leaned heavily on the right to a speedy trial, a cornerstone of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the High Court reiterated that any delay in trial must be justified, and when it results in prolonged pre-trial detention, it infringes on the accused’s right to liberty. The judge referred to the principle that detention before conviction should only be used when absolutely necessary, particularly when there is no substantial risk of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing.

"The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty," Justice Shekhawat stated, underscoring that the delay in this case violated this right. He also pointed out that "pre-conviction detention should not be resorted to, except in cases of necessity to secure attendance at the trial or upon material that the accused will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty."

This judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court reinforces the judicial principle that prolonged pre-trial detention, especially in cases of delayed prosecution, undermines the accused's fundamental rights. By granting bail to Ramandeep Kaur and Sandeep Singh, the court has reiterated the importance of a speedy trial and the cautious use of pre-conviction detention. This decision could have significant implications for how similar cases are handled, particularly regarding the balance between ensuring justice and protecting individual liberties.

Date of Decision: 22 August 2024

Ramandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab; Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Similar News