Pre-Trial Jail Cannot Become a Replica of Post-Conviction Sentence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Alleged Drunk-Driving Case Involving Three Deaths
Case Name: Harmanjot Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 10 July 2026
Citation: CRM-M-32902-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that pre-trial incarceration cannot be permitted to operate as a substitute for punishment after conviction. The object of detention pending trial is to secure the presence of the accused during the proceedings and not to punish him in advance or preventively detain him merely because the allegations are grave.
The Court observed that whether the petitioner’s alleged conduct constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, could be conclusively determined only after a complete assessment of the evidence produced during trial. Such a determination could not be made merely on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR while deciding an application for regular bail.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s involvement in certain other criminal cases could not, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for denying bail. Since the investigation had concluded, the petitioner was no longer required for custodial interrogation, and the trial was likely to take considerable time, his continued detention would serve no useful purpose.
Reiterating that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on regular bail, subject to the furnishing of appropriate personal and surety bonds.
Summary: The petitioner, Harmanjot Singh, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 99 dated 10 May 2026, registered at Police Station Badali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, for offences punishable under Sections 281, 105 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the prosecution, the complainant and three other persons were travelling towards their village on motorcycles when a Scorpio vehicle allegedly approached from the opposite direction at a high speed. The vehicle was stated to have been driven rashly and negligently and allegedly struck two motorcycles. Avtar Singh, Mohan Singh and Satwinder Singh sustained injuries in the collision and were subsequently declared brought dead at the hospital.
It was alleged that the petitioner was driving the Scorpio vehicle and that he emerged from the vehicle in an intoxicated condition, disclosed his identity and thereafter fled from the spot. The petitioner was arrested on the date of registration of the FIR, and the offending vehicle was taken into police custody.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel contended that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and was no longer required for investigation. It was argued that the essential ingredients of Section 105 of the BNS were absent because there was no material demonstrating that the petitioner had intended to cause the deaths of the victims. The defence further submitted that the trial would take considerable time and that continued incarceration would serve no meaningful purpose.
The State opposed the petition by emphasising the seriousness of the allegations. It submitted that the petitioner had allegedly driven at a high speed while under the influence of alcohol, causing the deaths of three innocent persons. The State also referred to the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and contended that there was a possibility of his committing similar offences if released.
The High Court, however, clarified that the precise nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, particularly the applicability of Section 105 of the BNS, required a thorough evaluation of the evidence during trial. The bail court could not prejudge this issue or record a conclusive finding regarding the petitioner’s intention or knowledge.
The Court attached significance to the fact that the investigation had already concluded and the petitioner was not required for further custodial interrogation. It also observed that the proceedings were unlikely to conclude immediately. In such circumstances, keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period would effectively convert pre-trial detention into punishment even before guilt had been established.
Justice Manisha Batra emphasised that imprisonment before conviction must not become a replica of the sentence that may follow conviction. The purpose of custody during trial is principally to ensure the accused’s presence before the court. It cannot be used as a punitive or preventive measure merely on account of the seriousness of the allegations.
The Court also rejected the proposition that past or pending criminal cases automatically disentitle an accused from bail. While antecedents may be relevant, they cannot, standing alone, justify continued deprivation of liberty when investigation is complete and no other compelling reason for custody is demonstrated.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the regular bail petition and directed that Harmanjot Singh be released on bail upon furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate concerned.