Prolonged Incarceration Violates Article 21 Regardless of nature of Crime: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced that the right to personal liberty under the Constitution remains paramount, asserting that bail cannot be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment. The Bench reinforced that prolonged detention without a speedy trial constitutes a fatal violation of fundamental rights, necessitating the grant of bail even in serious criminal cases where the trial has stagnated.

A Single Bench of Justice Manisha Batra presided over the matter, considering a third successive bail application where the petitioner had spent over two and a half years in custody with negligible progress in the trial. The Court emphasized that a change in circumstances, specifically the passage of time without trial advancement, justifies a fresh consideration of bail despite previous dismissals.

Key Takeaways

Right to Speedy Trial

Article 21 protections apply universally, and the state cannot oppose bail based on the gravity of the offense if it fails to provide a timely trial.

Bail Not a Punishment

Judicial custody during the pendency of trial must not be used as a punitive measure against the accused.

Successive Bail Maintainability

Continued incarceration and lack of trial progress constitute a 'substantial change in circumstances' allowing for fresh bail pleas.

Undertrial Protection

Accused individuals cannot be detained indefinitely where the delay in trial is not attributable to their own conduct.

Judicial Emphasis on Liberty and Trial Progress

The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since May 2024, yet only one witness had been partially examined. Relying on the principles laid down in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ( "2024(9) SCC 813": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 254), the Bench observed that the seriousness of a crime does not extinguish the right to a speedy trial. The Court highlighted that if the prosecuting agency or the court system lacks the wherewithal to protect this fundamental right, the State loses its standing to oppose bail solely on the grounds of the crime's nature.

Referring to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab ( "(1980) 2 SCC 565": 1980 CaseBase(SC) 263), the Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that the primary object of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused at trial, rather than to penalize them before a conviction is secured. Furthermore, the Bench invoked the spirit of Section 436A of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (now reflected in the new criminal codes), as discussed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ( "(2022) 10 SCC 51": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 640), to underscore that undertrial prisoners must be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable period.

The Court further observed that "It is well settled proposition of law that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring a speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ... howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to a speedy trial. Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment."

Ratio

Inordinate delay in the conclusion of a criminal trial, where the accused has suffered significant incarceration and the delay is not attributable to the defense, constitutes a violation of Constitution of India, 1950 and creates a fresh ground for bail, as personal liberty cannot be sacrificed due to systemic delays in the judicial process.

Background

The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No. 140 dated 20.04.2024, initially registered under Section 346 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with Sections 120-B, 201, and 302 subsequently added. The prosecution alleged involvement in a serious offense, though the case primarily rested on circumstantial evidence. Two previous bail applications filed by the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly under the Code Of Criminal Procedure) were dismissed in September 2025 and January 2026.

The petitioner moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the third time, arguing that two years and six months of incarceration with only one witness partially examined violated his rights under Constitution of India, 1950. The State opposed the plea, arguing that successive petitions were not maintainable given the gravity of the charges. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court found that the lack of trial progress since the last dismissal constituted a valid ground for intervention. The Court ultimately allowed the petition, granting regular bail while clarifying that the observations would not impact the merits of the ongoing trial.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M-48678-2026
Case Title: Gurvinder Singh @ Lalli Versus State of Haryana
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 30026