Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined

"The right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India..." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 serves as a foundational ground for extending regular bail when the prosecution lists numerous witnesses whose examination is yet to commence.

While granting bail to an accused in an attempted murder case, a single-judge bench of Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that continued pre-trial incarceration serves no useful purpose when the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time.

The prosecution initiated the case following an incident at a petrol pump in Karnal, where a co-accused allegedly fired a gunshot that injured a truck driver after an altercation over smoking. During the investigation, the petitioner was roped in under Section 109(1) and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with provisions of the Arms Act, on the allegation that he accompanied the principal assailant and provided his vehicle. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) after spending over nine months in judicial custody.

The primary question before the court was whether an accused is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity and the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India when the trial is delayed and as many as 24 prosecution witnesses remain unexamined.

Right To Speedy Trial An Inalienable Facet Of Article 21

Justice Virinder Aggarwal underscored that the prolonged detention of an under-trial prisoner directly infringes upon the constitutionally guaranteed right to life and personal liberty when the trial is not progressing expeditiously. The bench highlighted that the prosecution had cited 24 witnesses, but not a single witness had been examined by the trial court since the submission of the challan on February 9, 2026.

Taking judicial note of the procedural reality of criminal trials, the High Court emphasized that the presence of numerous unexamined witnesses indicates that the trial is bound to take substantial time to reach its culmination.

"The right to speedy trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same has been consistently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court..."

Bail Is The Rule And Incarceration An Exception

The court placed heavy reliance on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reiterating the foundational tenet of criminal jurisprudence that the grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception. The bench noted that every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction through due process of law.

The bench also drew support from the Supreme Court's verdict in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another, affirming that when the risk of trial obstruction can be mitigated through stringent procedural safeguards, the continued custody of the accused becomes unwarranted and punitive.

Parity And Lack Of Direct Overt Act Justify Relief

Examining the role attributed to the petitioner, the High Court observed that the principal allegation of firing the gunshot at the injured victim was directed exclusively against co-accused Sombir. The petitioner was only accused of accompanying the main assailant and providing his Swift car, with no specific overt act of causing injury or actively using a weapon attributed to him.

The bench further took note of its earlier order dated July 30, 2026, wherein regular bail had already been extended to similarly placed co-accused Deepak, who faced identical allegations of merely accompanying the shooter. Applying the doctrine of parity, the court determined that keeping the petitioner behind bars while his co-accused enjoyed liberty was unjustifiable.

Stringent Conditions Imposed To Safeguard Trial Integrity

Balancing personal liberty with the integrity of the judicial process, the High Court ordered the petitioner's release on bail subject to comprehensive conditions to be verified by the trial court. The bench directed that the petitioner must not induce, threaten, or intimidate any witness or tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner.

The court further mandated that the petitioner shall furnish proof of his permanent and correspondence addresses, disclose his PAN, Aadhaar, bank account particulars, and a declaration of immovable assets, while barring him from leaving India without prior judicial permission or committing any subsequent offences during trial.

The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, coupled with parity and the completion of the investigation, firmly entitled the petitioner to bail. The ruling reaffirms that pre-trial detention cannot be transformed into punitive imprisonment when substantial witness examination is pending.

Date of Decision: 21 August 2026