Pretrial Detention Cannot Amount to Pre-Conviction Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Attempted Murder Case

Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Faruk alias Faruq, accused of transporting cattle for slaughter and firing at informants. Justice Sandeep Moudgil ruled that the petitioner’s prolonged judicial custody of five months, lack of direct evidence, and the precedent of bail for co-accused warranted his release under the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The petitioner was implicated in an FIR dated January 9, 2020, for alleged offenses under the IPC, Arms Act, Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. He was accused of transporting cattle for slaughter and attempting to kill informants by firing at them. The petitioner was not arrested at the scene but was implicated based on the disclosure of co-accused and arrested in June 2024, four years after the FIR’s registration.

The Court noted that the petitioner was neither arrested at the scene nor was any recovery made from him. Justice Moudgil observed: "The petitioner’s nomination in the FIR is based solely on a co-accused’s disclosure, which, in itself, lacks sufficient evidentiary value for denying bail."

The Court reiterated the settled jurisprudence, stating:
"Pretrial incarceration must not extend unnecessarily. Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. The petitioner’s continued detention, especially when similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail, serves no purpose."

Addressing the prosecution’s argument about the petitioner’s involvement in other cases, the Court clarified:
"Criminal antecedents are relevant but cannot result in automatic denial of bail. Each case must be judged on its own merits without conflating evidence from pending cases."

Granting regular bail, the Court directed the petitioner to furnish bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate and imposed the following conditions:

The petitioner must not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.
The petitioner must cooperate with the trial proceedings.
The observations made in the judgment will not prejudice the merits of the case during trial.

The Court relied on precedents, including Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for speedy trials and minimal pre-conviction detention.

The ruling underscores the judiciary's responsibility to balance the presumption of innocence with concerns about public safety and justice. It reaffirms that pretrial detention must not become punitive and highlights the importance of judicial discretion in ensuring fair outcomes.

Date of Decision: November 22, 2024