Punjab and Haryana HC Grants Bail After Key Witness Turns Hostile

Granting relief to an accused in a case involving serious allegations under the special statute for child protection, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana emphasized that continued incarceration of an undertrial when material witnesses have turned hostile impinges upon the right to personal liberty.

A single-judge bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar was presiding over a regular bail petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner sought bail in connection with an FIR involving alleged kidnapping and sexual assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Court's Rationale on Liberty and Hostile Witnesses

The Court observed that the prosecutrix, who is considered the "star witness" of the prosecution, failed to support the case during her examination before the trial court. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since October 2025 and that the trial would likely take considerable time. Drawing upon the constitutional mandate, the bench highlighted that keeping an individual in continued custody after material witnesses have been examined serves no useful purpose.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Keeping the petitioner in continued custody for an indefinite period, particularly when the material witness has already been examined, would not serve any useful purpose and would impinge upon his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

To support its decision, the Court referred to the landmark ruling in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI ( "(2022) 10 SCC 51": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 640), which discussed the alarming statistics of undertrial prisoners in India and the need for the investigating agencies to use the power of arrest sparingly. The Court reiterated that jails are overcrowded with undertrials who are often poor and illiterate, and in a democracy, the state should not function as a police state.

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"petitioner Gurmukh Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned."

Background:

The dispute originated from an FIR registered in September 2025 based on a statement by the grandfather of a 16-year-old girl, alleging she had gone missing. While the petitioner was not initially named, he was later nominated through a supplementary statement. Charges were subsequently added under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 75 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the allegations of penetrative sexual assault were exclusively directed at a co-accused, and the petitioner was only accused of facilitating travel. Crucially, the prosecutrix (PW-2) deposed that she had left home voluntarily after a quarrel and denied any wrongdoing by the accused. The State opposed the bail citing the gravity of the offences, yet acknowledged that the prosecutrix had turned hostile. Considering the conclusion of the investigation and the presentation of the challan, the Court allowed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M-34201-2026
Case Title: Gurmukh Singh VERSUS State of Punjab
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Angrej Singh Sarwara, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 107