The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that prolonged pre-trial detention without reasonable prospect of swift trial violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. In a clear application of bail jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court granted regular bail to a petitioner detained for over seven months, emphasizing that delay in trial cannot be a justification for continued incarceration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kuldip Singh, was arrested on 20.06.2025 in connection with FIR No. 42 dated 20.05.2022, registered at Police Station Sadar, Pathankot. He faces charges under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, and Section 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983. The complainant alleged that the petitioner cheated her by accepting Rs. 13,00,000 on the pretext of arranging her son’s travel abroad, but failed to deliver on the promise.
Procedural History
- 01.03.2023: Petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender.
- 20.06.2025: Petitioner arrested after being traced.
- 27.11.2025: Status report filed by the State, confirming investigation completion and challan submission.
- 15.02.2026: Custody certificate filed, confirming detention of over 7 months and 26 days.
- 17.02.2026: Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release on regular bail, arguing that the trial was likely to extend indefinitely, the investigation was complete, and he had no prior criminal record.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether prolonged pre-trial detention, where investigation is complete, charges are framed, and trial is delayed, justifies denial of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly when the accused is not a flight risk and has no other pending cases.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner had been in custody for over seven months, the investigation was complete, the challan had been filed, charges framed, and only 11 of 20 prosecution witnesses had been examined. He emphasized that the petitioner was not involved in any other case and that continued detention served no purpose other than punishment without conviction. He relied on the principle that pre-trial detention must not become punitive and that delay in trial weighs heavily in favor of bail.
For the Respondent
The State counsel opposed bail, noting the petitioner’s prior status as a proclaimed offender. However, he conceded that the investigation was complete and that 11 out of 20 witnesses had been examined. He did not dispute the factual timeline or the petitioner’s clean record in other matters, and offered no concrete reason why bail would jeopardize the trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the cumulative effect of delay, completion of investigation, and the nature of the charges. It noted that while the petitioner had earlier been declared a proclaimed offender, his subsequent arrest and prolonged detention had already served the purpose of ensuring his presence. The Court held that the mere fact of a serious allegation does not override the right to liberty when trial proceedings are unduly prolonged.
"Keeping in view the custody period of the petitioner which is more than last 7 months and 26 days and the facts that the investigation has been completed; challan has been presented; charges have been framed and out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, 11 have been examined so far... the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail."
The Court emphasized that Section 483 of the BNSS 2023 empowers the High Court to grant bail in any case, even where the accused is not entitled to it as a matter of right under Section 439. It further clarified that the burden does not lie on the accused to prove innocence, but on the State to justify continued detention. The Court rejected the notion that past proclamation automatically disqualifies an accused from bail, especially when the State fails to demonstrate any risk of tampering or flight.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without a realistic prospect of expeditious trial violates Article 21 and granted regular bail on the petitioner furnishing bail bonds. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Trial Delay Is a Ground for Bail
- Practitioners must now routinely highlight the duration of pre-trial detention and the pace of trial proceedings in bail applications.
- Where more than six months have passed since charges were framed and fewer than half the witnesses examined, bail becomes a strong legal proposition.
- Courts are expected to treat undue delay as a factor weighing in favor of liberty, not against it.
Proclamation Status Does Not Permanently Bar Bail
- A prior proclamation order cannot be used as a blanket justification to deny bail indefinitely.
- The Court must assess current risk factors, not past conduct alone.
- Petitioners should file affidavits confirming no flight risk, no prior convictions, and cooperation with investigation.
BNSS 2023 Expands Judicial Discretion
- Section 483 BNSS 2023 provides broader discretionary powers than the old CrPC.
- High Courts may now grant regular bail even in non-bailable offenses if detention is unjustified.
- This judgment reinforces that bail is the rule, jail the exception - especially when trial progress is stagnant.
