Gurvinder Singh @ Lalli vs State of Haryana

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

The instant one is the third petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 140 dated 20.04.2024 registered under Section 346 of IPC (Sections 120-B, 201 and 302 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala. His earlier petitions bearing CRM-M No. 32503-2025 and CRM-M No.63880-2025 had been dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 08.09.2025 and 21.01.2026 respectively (Annexures P-6 and P-7).

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has suffered incarceration for a period of about two years and six months. The trial has not progressed, as only one witness, that too partly, has been examined so far. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take an indefinite period of time. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental right to be released on bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon him. Even after the dismissal of his second petition on 21.01.2026, there has been no progress in the trial. Each day spent by him in custody has given him a fresh reason to seek the concession of bail. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition, being a successive petition, is not maintainable, as his previous two petitions had been dismissed by passing detailed orders. While admitting that only one prosecution witness and that too partly, had been examined, it is submitted that the trial may be expedited. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

The petitioner has suffered incarceration of period about 02 years and 06 months. The trial has not progressed as only one witness that too partly has been examined. Although his earlier two petitions have been dismissed by this Court, however, the aforementioned factors amount to substantial change in circumstances, which entitle the petitioner to seek bail afresh. It is well settled proposition of law that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring a speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(9) SCC 813, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to a speedy trial. Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency, including the Court concerned, has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, to the effect that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, and the proper test to be applied in deciding whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the accused will appear to face trial. It is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

So far as the question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, had observed that the provisions contained in Section 436A of the Cr.P.C., which requires, inter alia, the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within the specified period, would apply to undertrial prisoners as well in the absence of any specific provisions. The petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2024. Only one witness in part has been examined so far. There is nothing on record to show that the delay is in any manner attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for a period of about 02 years and 06 months. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. Taking into consideration the period spent by the petitioner in custody, the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner.

Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.