Six Years in Custody, Only Two Witnesses Examined—Incarceration Cannot Continue Indefinitely: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case

“Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception—Trial Delay Violates Article 21”:  Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in the matter of Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab (CRM-M-24648-2024), granted regular bail to a man accused of murder under Sections 302, 201, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, after observing that continued incarceration without effective trial progress infringes on the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, speaking for the Court, declared: “Even an accused cannot be detained behind bars for an indefinite period, which tantamounts to curtailing his right to life and liberty.”

“He Was Carrying a Rifle, But No Specific Injury Was Attributed to Him”: Defence Highlights Absence of Active Role

The bail plea arose from FIR No.151 dated 12.10.2014 registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran, following a brutal attack in which one Gurjant Singh was murdered by a group of men wielding rifles, kirpans and datars. The complainant, Salwinder Singh—father of the deceased—stated in his FIR that Balbir Singh led the attack by raising a “lalkara” and was armed with a rifle, although he did not mention any specific injury inflicted by him.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that: “Except showing the presence of the petitioner carrying a rifle, no specific role or any injury has been attributed to him.”

She further noted that the petitioner could not be tried along with three co-accused—Gurdev Singh, Stalanjit Singh, and Gurcharan Singh—who were acquitted in 2018, as he had been declared a proclaimed offender in 2015 and surrendered only in October 2018.

Since his surrender, however, he has remained in continuous custody for over 6 years and 7 months, and the trial has scarcely progressed.

“Only 2 Out of 17 Witnesses Examined—Trial Nowhere Near Completion”: Court Alarmed by Delay

After evaluating the custody certificate placed on record, the Court recorded with concern: “Out of 17 witnesses, only 2 have been examined so far after framing of the charge on 17.8.2021.”

This, the Court held, is a classic case of prolonged undertrial detention that cannot be justified under the constitutional scheme. Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 RCR (Criminal) 131, the High Court reiterated: “The grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home is an exception.”

The Bench further emphasized that courts must adopt a humane and constitutionally sensitive approach: “A humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to custody.”

“Pre-Trial Detention Cannot Become a Substitute for Punishment”: Court Reaffirms Right to Speedy Trial

In reinforcing the right to a speedy trial, the Court drew upon the landmark decision in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98, asserting: “Right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court observed that the petitioner’s continued incarceration, without a meaningful pace in trial, could no longer be justified, especially in light of the acquittal of similarly placed co-accused and the non-attribution of any specific role or injury to him.

“Grant of Bail Does Not Prejudge the Case—Merits Will Be Examined at Trial”

Allowing the bail petition, Justice Moudgil made it clear that the order is not a commentary on the guilt or innocence of the accused: “It is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

The Court directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to constitutional safeguards for undertrial prisoners, especially in cases involving prolonged pre-conviction detention without adjudication. It also sends a clear message that judicial delay cannot be allowed to override fundamental liberties, even in serious offences like murder.

In the words of the Court: “Detaining an accused indefinitely, in the face of a sluggish trial, offends not just the law but the conscience of the Constitution.”

Date of Decision: March 19, 2025