Named Later, Not Identified in Court: P&H High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Due to Weak Eyewitness & Prolonged Custody

Case Name: Yuvraj Singh @ Sahil Giani & Ors. v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 30 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M-72924-2025 & connected matters

Bench: Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where accused persons are not named in the FIR, are subsequently implicated based on a delayed statement, and are not identified by the key eyewitness during trial, coupled with prolonged custody and slow progress of trial, they are entitled to the concession of bail.

Summary: The case arose out of a brutal shooting incident leading to the death of a young man. As per the prosecution, the deceased was allegedly attacked by named accused along with 10–12 unidentified persons. The petitioners were not named in the FIR and were later implicated based on the statement of an alleged eyewitness recorded two days after the incident.

The petitioners argued that their implication was an afterthought and unsupported by reliable evidence. It was highlighted that the key eyewitness (PW-1), during trial, failed to identify most of the petitioners, thereby materially weakening the prosecution case against them.

Further, it was contended that the postmortem report attributed firearm injury to another co-accused, and no specific overt act was attributed to most of the petitioners. The case against them rested largely on circumstantial and doubtful eyewitness evidence.

The Court also took into account that the petitioners had been in custody for a significant period ranging from more than one year to over two years and that only one out of 27 prosecution witnesses had been examined, indicating slow progress of trial.

While the State argued that the petitioners were part of an unlawful assembly and involved in a premeditated attack, the Court found that the evidentiary value of such allegations would be tested only during trial.

Given the cumulative factors non-naming in FIR, weak identification, prolonged custody, and delay in trial the Court found it appropriate to grant bail without commenting on merits.

Decision: The High Court allowed all the bail petitions and directed release of the petitioners on regular bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.