Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

"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

Latest Legal News