After One Spent Over 3 Years In Custody, P&H HC Lets 3 Accused Refile Bail Pleas In 2 Months With Witness Statements

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Court could determine the petitioners’ entitlement to regular bail when the recorded testimony of the complainant and injured witness, needed to assess each petitioner’s specific role, was not before it

The court held

The Court did not grant or refuse regular bail on the merits.

It also directed

It disposed of all three petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to file fresh regular-bail petitions after two months, supported by the complainant’s and injured witness’s statements and other relevant material.

01Facts

The three petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 175 dated 26 June 2023, registered at Police Station City Rajpura, Patiala, for offences including murder, attempt to murder and related offences under the IPC, corresponding to provisions of the BNS

p. 2

The FIR alleged that the petitioners and others attacked the complainant’s party with weapons; a later statement by an injured witness named additional accused

pp. 3–5

The petitioners had been in custody for varying periods.

pp. 5–6

The complainant and injured witness had been examined at trial, but their statements were not placed on the bail record.

pp. 5–6

Earlier bail applications by Gursevak Singh and Hari Singh had been withdrawn or dismissed, while Gursevak Singh had also received interim bail on medical grounds.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Court could determine the petitioners’ entitlement to regular bail when the recorded testimony of the complainant and injured witness, needed to assess each petitioner’s specific role, was not before it

pp. 6–7

ii.2. Whether the petitions should be disposed of with liberty to renew the bail applications after the relevant trial testimony and other material were placed on record

p. 7

03Law Applied

The petitions were brought under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the High Court to consider regular bail.

p. 2

The Court identified the charged offences under the IPC and their stated BNS counterparts.

p. 2

It did not cite or apply any precedent, nor did it set out a broader bail test; its stated approach was to require the material witness statements and relevant record to assess the specific role attributed to each petitioner.

pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 18 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 307 Section 323 Section 324 Section 325 Section 506 Section 148 Section 149

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 103 Section 109 Section 115 Section 117 Section 118 Section 190 Section 191 Section 351

04Reasoning

Although the complainant and injured witness had testified at trial, their statements were absent from the petitions.

p. 6

The Court therefore could not assess the specific allegations against each petitioner, who were alleged to have been armed with sharp-edged weapons.

p. 6

Petitioners’ counsel were likewise unable to address the individual roles by reference to the testimony.

p. 6

In these circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to allow the petitioners to renew their applications with the relevant evidence and a properly prepared chronology, rather than determine bail on an incomplete record.

pp. 6–7