Punjab & Haryana High Court grants regular bail to accused under Section 111 of BNS, applies Article 21 liberty principles

Case Name: Jaskaran Singh @ Gosha v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: October 01, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-42860-2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara

Held: The High Court granted regular bail to Jaskaran Singh @ Gosha, accused under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, observing that pre-trial incarceration cannot be a substitute for punishment and prolonged detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that despite prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to organized criminal activity, bail was justified since he had spent over four months in custody, and the prosecution failed to show compelling reasons for continued detention.

Summary: The FIR, registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda, alleged that Jaskaran Singh and co-accused were part of a gang engaged in robbery and organized crime. They were apprehended near Natt Road, Talwandi Sabo, where a baseball bat and an iron khanda were recovered. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner was a habitual offender previously booked under the NDPS Act and that his release could jeopardize public safety.

Justice Anoop Chitkara, relying on established precedents including Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, State of Kerala v. Raneef, and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reiterated that pre-trial custody must not resemble post-conviction punishment. He emphasized that personal liberty is a constitutionally protected right and denial of bail without pressing necessity undermines due process. The Court noted that the petitioner had no objection to stringent conditions and that detention beyond four months lacked justification given the stage of the investigation.

Decision: The Court allowed the bail application, directing the petitioner’s release on furnishing personal and surety bonds up to ₹10,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate. It imposed conditions restraining him from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses and added that if the petitioner committed any non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, the State could seek cancellation of bail. The Court clarified that this order was not to be treated as a blanket bail in any other matter.