Balancing Bail Rights and Criminal Justice

Introduction

On April 21, 2025, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh delivered a significant judgment in the cases of CRM-M No.1677-2025, CRM-M No.52150-2024, and CRM-M No.14123-2025, involving petitioners Karamjit, Sunil, and Rajesh @ Dada, respectively, against the State of Haryana. Presided over by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, the court granted regular bail to the petitioners, who had been incarcerated for over two years in connection with a violent incident involving gunshot injuries. This article provides a detailed legal analysis of the judgment, examining its implications for bail jurisprudence, the rights of undertrial prisoners, and the broader criminal justice system in India, with references to relevant legal precedents and statutory provisions.

Download Judgement

Background of the Case

The petitioners faced charges stemming from a violent attack that resulted in gunshot injuries to the complainant and three others, with the incident allegedly orchestrated by Sunil, Rishabh alias Chotu, and Krishan. The First Information Report (FIR) invoked serious charges, including under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to attempt to murder. The petitioners were accused of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, with specific allegations varying across their roles:

• Rajesh @ Dada: Alleged to have provided money to arrange assailants, despite being in judicial custody at the time of the incident, raising questions about the plausibility of his involvement.
• Sunil: Accused of being a conspirator who instigated the attack, with no direct connection to Rajesh.
• Karamjit: Not named in the FIR and absent from the scene of the crime, with no evidence linking him to the incident.

The prosecution’s case relied on disclosure statements, particularly from co-accused Vicky, but lacked concrete evidence tying the petitioners to the injuries or the conspiracy. The trial had progressed slowly, with only four out of 36 prosecution witnesses examined, and key witnesses, such as Bantu (PW-2), failing to identify the petitioners or attribute overt acts to them.

The petitioners sought regular bail, arguing that their prolonged detention, lack of direct evidence, and the slow pace of the trial violated their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Key Observations from the High Court’s Judgment

The court’s judgment can be distilled into several critical findings and directives:

1. Prolonged Detention and Trial Delays

The petitioners had been in custody for over two years, with the investigation completed and a chargesheet filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). However, the trial had made little progress, with only four prosecution witnesses examined out of 36. The court noted that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, a factor that weighed heavily in favor of granting bail.

2. Lack of Direct Evidence

The court scrutinized the prosecution’s case and found it lacking in direct evidence against the petitioners:

• None of the injuries, including those deemed life-threatening under Section 307 IPC, were attributed to the petitioners.
• The prosecution’s reliance on disclosure statements, particularly against Rajesh, was deemed improbable, as no evidence showed he could arrange funds while in custody or was in contact with co-accused Vicky.
• Key witnesses, such as Bantu, did not implicate the petitioners, and his declaration as a hostile witness further weakened the prosecution’s case.

3. Constitutional and Judicial Precedents

The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s observations in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, which highlighted the crisis of undertrial prisoners in India. The Supreme Court had noted that over two-thirds of prison inmates are undertrials, many of whom are poor, illiterate, or charged with minor offenses, and criticized the colonial mindset of routine arrests. The High Court invoked this precedent to argue that prolonged detention without trial progress violated the petitioners’ rights under Article 21.

Additionally, the court cited Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. (2020) 1 RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 382, which establish that involvement in other cases is not a valid ground to deny bail. This was particularly relevant for petitioners with prior criminal antecedents, as the prosecution argued against bail based on their criminal history.

4. Grant of Regular Bail

The court allowed the bail petitions, ordering the petitioners’ release on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The decision was made without commenting on the merits of the case, ensuring that the trial court could proceed independently. The court emphasized that further detention served no purpose given the completed investigation, slow trial progress, and lack of direct evidence.

5. Safeguards Against Prejudice

The judgment explicitly stated that its observations should not influence the trial’s merits, directing the trial court to proceed objectively. This safeguarded the prosecution’s ability to present its case while addressing the petitioners’ immediate liberty concerns.

Legal Implications

1. Reinforcement of Bail as a Rule

The judgment reaffirms the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as articulated in cases like State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308. By granting bail in the absence of direct evidence and due to trial delays, the court underscored that detention should not be punitive, especially for undertrials awaiting trial.

2. Protection of Article 21 Rights

The court’s reliance on Article 21 highlights the constitutional imperative to protect personal liberty. Prolonged detention without a foreseeable trial conclusion was deemed a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights, aligning with the Supreme Court’s observations in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81, which first addressed the plight of undertrial prisoners.

3. Critique of Overreliance on Criminal Antecedents

By citing Prabhakar Tewari and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi, the court clarified that prior criminal involvement does not automatically disqualify an accused from bail. This is a significant check on the prosecution’s tendency to oppose bail based on antecedents, ensuring that bail decisions are grounded in the specifics of the case at hand.

4. Addressing Trial Delays

The judgment draws attention to systemic issues in India’s criminal justice system, particularly the slow pace of trials. With only four witnesses examined in over two years, the case exemplifies the backlog plaguing Indian courts. The court’s decision to grant bail in such circumstances incentivizes expeditious trials and discourages unnecessary detention.

5. Limits of Conspiracy Charges

The court’s skepticism about the conspiracy charges under Section 120-B IPC, particularly against Rajesh, highlights the need for tangible evidence to substantiate such allegations. The improbability of Rajesh arranging funds while in custody and the lack of communication evidence with co-accused Vicky underscore the judiciary’s role in preventing speculative or weakly supported charges from justifying prolonged detention.

Broader Context and Significance

The judgment in Karamjit, Sunil, and Rajesh @ Dada v. State of Haryana is a microcosm of the challenges facing India’s criminal justice system, including overcrowded prisons, undertrial detention, and trial delays. The Supreme Court’s observations in Satender Kumar Antil provide a sobering backdrop: over two-thirds of prison inmates are undertrials, many charged with minor offenses or detained unnecessarily. This case reflects the judiciary’s growing sensitivity to these issues, as courts increasingly prioritize liberty over prolonged incarceration in the absence of compelling evidence.

The decision also has implications for cases involving conspiracy charges, which are often difficult to disprove at the bail stage due to their broad scope. By demanding concrete evidence, the court sets a precedent for rigorous scrutiny of such allegations, protecting accused persons from being detained on tenuous grounds.

Furthermore, the judgment contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on bail in India, particularly in the context of serious offenses like attempt to murder. It balances the severity of the charges with the petitioners’ rights, demonstrating that even in cases involving violence, bail can be granted when the prosecution’s case is weak and detention is disproportionate.

Conclusion

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s judgment on April 21, 2025, in the bail petitions of Karamjit, Sunil, and Rajesh @ Dada is a landmark decision that upholds the principles of liberty, fairness, and judicial scrutiny in criminal proceedings. By granting bail based on prolonged detention, lack of direct evidence, and trial delays, the court addressed both the petitioners’ immediate concerns and broader systemic issues in India’s criminal justice system. The reliance on Supreme Court precedents like Satender Kumar Antil and Prabhakar Tewari reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting undertrial prisoners’ rights under Article 21.

As the trial proceeds, the court’s directive to avoid prejudice ensures a fair adjudication on the merits. Legal scholars and practitioners will view this judgment as a significant step toward reforming bail practices and addressing the undertrial crisis, urging stakeholders to prioritize expeditious trials and evidence-based prosecutions.

References

1. Constitution of India, Article 21.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B and 307.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 173.
4. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51.
5. Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. (2020) 1 RCR (Criminal) 831.
6. Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 382.
7. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308.
8. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81.
9. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, CRM-M No.1677-2025, CRM-M No.52150-2024, CRM-M No.14123-2025, April 21, 2025.