The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that repeated bail applications in grave criminal cases do not automatically entitle an accused to release, especially when trial progress is abysmally slow and serious charges remain unproven. In a significant ruling, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s third bail plea while imposing a strict timeline on the trial court to conclude proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Manpreet Singh @ Mani, is accused in a serious criminal case arising from a fatal cross-firing incident on 22.06.2021 at Jalaleana Road, Rishi Colony, Kotkapura, District Faridkot. The incident resulted in the death of Krishan Pal, who was riding in a Corolla car alongside other accused persons. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with several others, conspired to kill Ravel Singh, the survivor, in a premeditated attack.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 22.06.2021 at approximately 11:00 a.m.
- FIR No. 135/2021 was registered under Sections 307, 304, 148, 149, 120-B IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959
- A DDR dated 23.06.2021 (No. 71) added charges under Section 302 IPC after the death of Krishan Pal was confirmed
- The deceased’s real identity was established as Krishan Pal, S/o Ram Krishan, after initial misidentification as Deepak
- 07 live 9mm cartridges were recovered from the deceased’s pants
- The Corolla car used in the crime was recovered on 24.06.2021 from a deserted area
- The petitioner was arrested on 23.07.2021 and produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate
- During interrogation, the petitioner disclosed he was paid Rs. 25,000 by Harpreet Singh @ Bhau to participate in the attack
- Harpreet Singh @ Bhau was subsequently arrested and implicated Goldy Brar as the mastermind
- The petitioner claims he was engaged as a participant, not a planner
Procedural History
- 22.06.2021: Occurrence and FIR registration
- 23.06.2021: DDR No. 71 registered cross-version against petitioner and others
- 23.07.2021: Petitioner produced before Ilaqa Magistrate and arrested
- 31.08.2023: First bail petition (CRM-M-58907-2022) dismissed by a coordinate Bench
- 21.01.2025: Second bail petition (CRM-M-33892-2024) withdrawn and dismissed
- 19.03.2026: Third bail petition filed and dismissed by this Court
- As of the date of judgment, the petitioner has been in custody for 4 years and 7 months
- Only 3 out of 38 prosecution witnesses have been examined in trial
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought regular bail on grounds of prolonged custody, delay in trial, and absence of prima facie evidence linking him directly to the fatal shooting.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a third bail application, filed after two prior dismissals and amid extreme trial delay, warrants grant of bail merely due to prolonged incarceration, or whether the gravity of charges and lack of trial progress must be balanced against the accused’s right to liberty.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the prolonged custody of over four years, with only three witnesses examined out of thirty-eight, constitutes a violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. He relied on Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab to contend that undue delay in trial, especially in non-heinous cases, warrants bail. He emphasized that the petitioner was not the shooter and had no prior criminal record.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the allegations involve conspiracy to commit murder, use of illegal firearms, and organized violence under Sections 148, 149, 120-B IPC and the Arms Act. The prosecution highlighted the recovery of live cartridges from the deceased, the weapon used by Ravel Singh, and the petitioner’s own disclosure implicating himself and others. The State argued that granting bail would risk witness tampering and undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s prolonged detention but emphasized that the nature of the offences - conspiracy to murder, use of firearms, and organized violence - demands extreme caution. The Court noted that the trial has progressed at a glacial pace, with only three of thirty-eight witnesses examined over four years.
"The right to a speedy trial cannot be invoked as a sword to secure release in grave cases where the allegations, if proven, would warrant life imprisonment or death. However, the State cannot indefinitely delay trial and then oppose bail on grounds of seriousness."
The Court held that while the petitioner’s custody is not per se illegal, the state’s failure to complete trial within a reasonable time cannot be ignored. The Court declined to grant bail outright, citing the seriousness of the charges and the petitioner’s role as disclosed in his own statement. Instead, it imposed a binding directive on the trial court.
The Verdict
The third bail petition was dismissed. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of this order. If the trial is not concluded within this period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file another bail application. The Court further directed that a copy of this order be forwarded to the trial court for compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Trial Delays Cannot Be Used to Justify Bail in Grave Cases
- Practitioners must not assume prolonged custody alone entitles an accused to bail in cases involving Section 307, 120-B IPC, or Arms Act violations
- Courts will weigh the nature of the offence, stage of trial, and state’s conduct before granting relief
- A delay in trial does not automatically override the seriousness of charges
Courts May Impose Trial Deadlines as Alternative to Bail
-
This judgment establishes a new procedural tool: courts may set strict trial timelines instead of granting bail
-
Practitioners should now routinely request such timelines in bail applications where trial is unduly delayed
-
Failure to comply with such deadlines opens the door for reapplication for bail without being barred by prior dismissals
-
Always file an application under Section 309 CrPC to urge expeditious trial alongside bail petitions
-
Maintain a log of witness examination progress to substantiate claims of delay
-
Cite this judgment to argue that courts have discretion to impose deadlines as a middle path between incarceration and premature release
