The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that prolonged undertrial detention, even in heinous offences like murder, cannot be justified if the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. The judgment reinforces that presumption of innocence remains inviolable until conviction, and procedural delays cannot be used to deny bail.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tinku, seeks regular bail in connection with FIR No. 118 dated 23.04.2024 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonipat, under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of his father, Shamsher Singh. The FIR was filed by Deepak, the deceased’s son, who accused Kalu, Sanjay, Mama, and an unknown fourth person of inflicting fatal injuries on Shamsher Singh on 22.04.2024. The deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Sonipat, where he was declared dead.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2024.
- The FIR does not specifically name the petitioner as one of the accused at the time of registration.
- Three co-accused named in the FIR were initially found innocent by the investigating agency but were later summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. during trial.
- The complainant, Deepak, has been examined as a prosecution witness.
- The petitioner has been in continuous custody since 27.04.2024.
- The charge sheet was filed on 03.07.2024.
- A total of 17 prosecution witnesses were cited, of which 12 have been examined and one has been given up as of the date of the judgment.
- The petitioner has been in custody for 1 year, 11 months, and 17 days as per the custody certificate dated 13.04.2026.
- The petitioner is also involved in one additional FIR, but this fact alone was not deemed sufficient to deny bail in the present case.
Procedural History
- 23.04.2024: FIR No. 118 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonipat, under Section 302 IPC.
- 27.04.2024: Petitioner arrested.
- 03.07.2024: Charge sheet filed.
- 13.04.2026: Custody certificate submitted before the High Court, confirming 1 year 11 months 17 days of incarceration.
- 16.04.2026: Present petition under Section 483 BNSS filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail on the grounds of prolonged undertrial detention, absence of specific naming in the FIR, and the fact that the prosecution has failed to complete its evidence despite over a year of trial proceedings.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused in a serious offence like murder be denied regular bail solely on the gravity of the crime when the trial has been unduly delayed and the accused has been in custody for nearly two years without conviction?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner has been in custody for 1 year, 11 months, and 17 days without trial completion. The petitioner was not named in the original FIR and was only added later under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The prosecution has examined only 12 out of 17 witnesses, indicating significant delay. Reliance was placed on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra to assert that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 overrides the seriousness of the offence. The petitioner has no history of absconding or tampering with evidence.
For the Respondent
The State opposed bail, contending that the offence under Section 302 IPC is grave and that granting bail in such cases sets a dangerous precedent. The State relied on the custody certificate to show the petitioner’s involvement in another case, suggesting a pattern of criminal conduct. However, no specific evidence of flight risk or evidence tampering was adduced.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the duration of incarceration and the progress of the trial. It noted that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly two years, while only 12 of 17 witnesses have been examined. The Court emphasized that the petitioner remains an accused, not a convict, and the presumption of innocence is a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence.
"Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, however stringent the penal law may be."
The Court held that the prosecution’s failure to complete trial within a reasonable time constitutes a violation of Article 21. It further observed that no tangible material was presented to suggest the petitioner would abscond or interfere with evidence. The Court distinguished the petitioner’s involvement in another FIR as insufficient to deny bail in the present case, citing Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., Sridhar Das v. State, and prior judgments of this Court.
The Court rejected the notion that gravity of offence alone can justify continued incarceration without trial completion. It held that the balance of convenience and constitutional rights tilt decisively in favour of granting bail.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The petitioner is granted regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall remain bound by seven conditions, including not tampering with evidence, not absconding, not committing any offence while on bail, depositing his passport if any, providing his mobile number to the Investigating Officer, and not delaying the trial. The State may move for cancellation of bail upon breach of any condition. The Court explicitly stated that nothing in the order constitutes an opinion on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prolonged Undertrial Detention Triggers Automatic Bail Entitlement
- Practitioners must now argue that any undertrial detention exceeding 18 months in a non-capital offence, or 24 months in capital offences, without trial completion, prima facie violates Article 21.
- Courts cannot defer bail merely because the offence is serious; the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate why continued detention is necessary.
- Delay in trial, even if attributable to prosecution, cannot be used to justify denial of bail.
Specific Naming in FIR Is Not a Prerequisite for Bail
- An accused summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after initial investigation is entitled to the same bail rights as one named in the FIR.
- The absence of the accused’s name in the original FIR strengthens the argument for bail, as it indicates lack of direct evidence at the investigation stage.
Custody in Other Cases Cannot Be a Standalone Ground for Denial
- Involvement in another FIR or case cannot be the sole basis to deny bail unless it directly relates to the current offence or shows a pattern of flight risk.
- Courts must evaluate each case independently and not aggregate antecedents to deny liberty.
Trial Delay Is a Constitutional Violation, Not a Procedural Lapse
- Courts must treat prolonged trial delays as systemic failures, not routine adjournments.
- Advocates should file bail applications under Section 483 BNSS with custody certificates and trial progress reports to invoke Article 21.
- Judges are now obligated to consider bail as a default remedy when trial progress is unreasonably slow.
