After 7 Years In Custody, P&H HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Killing Couple As Fresh Trial Is Likely To Take Time

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from an FIR alleging his involvement in the abduction and murders of Amandeep Singh and Amanpreet Kaur.

He had been in custody since 4 October 2019.

His two earlier bail petitions had been dismissed as withdrawn.

At the time of the present petition, only five of 40 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and, following the summoning of additional accused under Section 193 CrPC, a fresh trial had commenced.

The petitioner relied on prolonged incarceration and the expected delay in completing trial; the State opposed bail on the grounds of successive-petition maintainability and the seriousness of the allegations.

An accused may file successive bail applications, but the court must consider the grounds for rejecting earlier applications and record the fresh grounds supporting a different decision, as stated in Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458.

Article 21 protects an accused’s right to a speedy trial; prolonged incarceration and trial delay may justify bail even in serious cases, and bail is not to be withheld as punishment, as explained in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 645.

The object of bail is to secure the accused’s attendance at trial, not to punish, as stated in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565.

The Court also referred to Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, concerning the application of Section 436-A CrPC to special enactments in the absence of a specific contrary provision.

The Court treated the petitioner’s continuous custody since 4 October 2019 and the absence of a realistic prospect of an early trial as material fresh grounds for considering the third application.

Only five of 40 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the commencement of a fresh trial after additional accused were summoned was likely to cause further delay.

Applying Article 21 and the cited authorities, the Court held that the seriousness of the allegations did not, by itself, justify continued detention where the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Bail was subject to conditions concerning non-interference with witnesses, attendance at trial, disclosure and updating of address and contact details, and the State’s liberty to seek cancellation in the event of breach.

The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the case.