Prolonged Custody Cannot Overshadow Murder Accusations: Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the principle that the severity of a murder charge outweighs the duration of incarceration, refusing to grant bail to an accused despite over two years of custody. 

Justice Manisha Batra presided over the petition seeking regular bail for the accused, Lakhwant Singh. The Court examined the tension between the petitioner's right to liberty during a prolonged trial and the state's interest in prosecuting heinous crimes involving firearms and homicidal death.

Bail in Murder Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that while prolonged custody is a relevant consideration, it does not function as an automatic ground for bail in serious offenses. The bench noted that six witnesses had already been examined and the trial could be expedited rather than being deemed unduly delayed.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized that “While length of incarceration is a factor that weighs with the Court in considering bail, it cannot overshadow the seriousness of the accusation of murder under Section 302 of IPC. There exists a genuine apprehension that his release may imperil the course of trial and undermine the integrity of the trial and could pose a risk by influencing unexamined witnesses or tampering with evidence.”

Background

The case originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib following a land dispute that turned violent on June 14, 2024. The complainant, Balbir Singh, alleged that the petitioner, armed with a pistol and accompanied by family members, fired shots at his brother, Satbir Singh, who later succumbed to his injuries. The petitioner was also accused of causing grievous injury to the complainant's eye.

The petitioner was arrested on June 19, 2024, and sought bail on the grounds of a 25-day delay in the medico-legal examination and a claim of being the victim of aggression during a dispute over the installation of an electricity pole. The petitioner further argued that since the High Court had stayed certain proceedings in a related application under Section 358 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the trial would be significantly delayed.

However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on established precedents including Parmod Kumar Saxena Vs. UOI, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra ( "(2007) 1 SCC, 242": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 274), and State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi to conclude that the element of genuineness and the nature of the accusations must prevail. Finding no compelling grounds, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M No.23507 of 2026
Case Title: Lakhwant Singh v. State of Punjab
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab; Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the complainant

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 21093