Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Accused Named Solely in Co-Accused's Disclosure Statement

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to an accused nominated solely on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar emphasized that the culpability of such an individual is a matter of trial and continued detention without specific overt acts would be unjustified.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, presiding as a single-judge bench, adjudicated upon the bail plea of an individual who was not named in the initial First Information Report (FIR). The Court took note of the petitioner's clean antecedents and the fact that other co-accused had already secured anticipatory bail, thereby invoking the principle of parity.

Judicial Scrutiny of Nominations Based on Disclosure Statements

The Court observed that the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor named in the FIR, and his involvement was suggested only through a disclosure statement made by another accused while in police custody. Highlighting the limited evidentiary value of such statements at the bail stage, the Court underscored that the trial would likely take considerable time.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The principal basis for his nomination is stated to be the disclosure statement of a co-accused. It is also not disputed that co-accused Balwinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court. The petitioner is stated to have clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. The trial is likely to take considerable time in its conclusion and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period."

Reliance on Supreme Court Guidelines on Undertrial Prisoners

Invoking the landmark ruling in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI ( "(2022) 10 SCC 51": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 640), the Court reiterated the concerns regarding the rising number of undertrial prisoners in India. It noted that arrest should be a sparingly used measure in a democracy. The Court noted: "Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners... Notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly."

The Court has the following directions:

"petitioner Joban 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 altercation over flying kites on January 13, 2026, between the complainant’s sons and their neighbours. This escalated on January 21, 2026, when the complainant and her son were allegedly assaulted. Later that day, the complainant’s husband was attacked near Civil Hospital, Amritsar. While the petitioner was not named in the FIR registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 307, 323, 341, 34, and 120-B of the IPC), he was nominated after a co-accused, Raja Sahota, was apprehended via CCTV footage and gave a statement.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner had been in custody since April 18, 2026, and sought parity with co-accused Balwinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh, who were granted relief in Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab ( "CRM-M-30287-2026": 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 104) and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi versus State of Punjab, respectively. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner's alleged participation established during the investigation. However, the Court found that the petitioner’s culpability remained a matter for trial and allowed the petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M-34230-2026
Case Title: Joban Singh v. State of Punjab
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vini Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 106