Prosecution Cannot Keep an Undertrial in Jail Indefinitely While Its Witnesses Repeatedly Evade Trial: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case After 3½ Years’ Custody

Case Name: Parbat Singh alias Nihang v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 27 October 2025

Citation: CRM-M-39463-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that continued detention of the petitioner could not be justified merely by the gravity of the allegations or the pendency of other criminal cases when he had already undergone more than three years and six months of incarceration and the trial was progressing at an exceptionally slow pace due to the repeated non-appearance of prosecution witnesses. The Court noted that only four out of twenty-two prosecution witnesses had been examined and that, on numerous hearing dates, no prosecution witness appeared despite summons and bailable warrants. It further observed that the petitioner had not been named in the original FIR, was subsequently implicated on the allegation of having conducted a recce of the deceased, and had not been convicted in any of the other cases relied upon by the State. Finding no substantial reason to prolong his pre-trial incarceration, the Court granted regular bail.

Summary: The petitioner, Parbat Singh alias Nihang, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in an FIR registered under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case arose from the shooting of Harjit Singh alias Petta, in which the pillion rider also sustained a firearm injury. The petitioner was not named in the original FIR. He was subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement of the complainant, who alleged, after viewing village CCTV footage with others, that the petitioner had conducted a recce of the deceased and passed information to the assailant.

The petitioner contended that he was neither present at the scene of occurrence nor alleged to have fired upon the deceased. It was further argued that the CCTV recording, on the basis of which he was allegedly identified, had not been taken into possession by the investigating agency and that no proper identification exercise had been conducted. He had remained in custody since 8 April 2022. Although the challan was presented on 6 July 2022 and charges were framed on 19 August 2023, only four of the twenty-two prosecution witnesses had been examined by the time the bail petition was considered.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner had allegedly conducted surveillance of the deceased before the murder and was involved in fourteen other criminal cases. The High Court, however, examined the progress of the trial and found that prosecution witnesses had repeatedly failed to appear, even after service of summons and bailable warrants. The Court also noticed that the petitioner had either been acquitted, granted relief, or not yet convicted in the other cases cited by the State. Several of those cases had been registered or implicated him after his arrest in other matters.

Considering the limited role attributed to the petitioner, the nature of the material relied upon for his implication, his custody of more than three years and six months, the absence of any conviction in the cases cited against him, and the prosecution’s failure to ensure timely examination of its witnesses, the Court concluded that further denial of bail was unwarranted. The Court clarified that its observations would not be treated as an expression on the merits and directed the Trial Court to decide the case independently on the evidence.

Decision: The regular bail petition was allowed. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent Court or Magistrate, provided he was not required in any other case. He was also directed not to threaten or influence any prosecution witness, directly or indirectly. The Trial Court was expected to proceed with and decide the case expeditiously in accordance with law.