Pre-trial Detention Cannot Become Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Man Accused Under Attempt to Murder and Arms Act Charges

“Detaining the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose,” In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner Nikhil @ Janu, observing that his continued incarceration would amount to punishment without trial and a violation of his fundamental right to life and liberty. The case arose from FIR No. 280 of 2023, registered at Police Station Sector 17, Faridabad, under Sections 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 201, 341 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, delivering the judgment in CRM-M-22583-2025, sharply criticized the delay in the trial process. The petitioner had been in custody since August 1, 2023, the chargesheet had been filed on September 30, 2024, and charges were framed on January 3, 2025. Yet, as of the hearing date, none of the 33 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

The Court categorically held: “The right to a speedy trial is an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Continued incarceration, when the trial has not progressed at all, is constitutionally impermissible.”

The FIR in question involved allegations of criminal conspiracy and use of firearms. However, the Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, had no specific role assigned, and was nominated only on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The injuries reported were all “simple in nature and on non-vital parts of the body.”

Rejecting the State’s objection that the petitioner was a “habitual offender,” the Court clarified: “Appreciation of evidence during trial has to be in reference to the evidence in that case alone and not based on pending or past cases. Otherwise, denial of bail on account of pendency would be arbitrary.”

Relying on established precedent, the High Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., where it was held: “Grant of bail is the rule and jail is the exception. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence.”

The Court also echoed the Supreme Court’s warning in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab that: “An inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the petition and directed that the accused be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds. It concluded with a clear message: “A humane attitude is required while dealing with bail. The dignity of an accused must be maintained, howsoever poor he may be.”

This decision underscores that the presumption of innocence and timely trial are not just legal formalities but constitutional mandates that courts must vigilantly protect.

Date of Decision: May 2, 2025