Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Accused in SC/ST and BUDS Act Case After Compromise; Emphasizes Liberty and Reformative Justice
Case Name: Jagjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Another
Date of Judgment: October 31, 2025
Citation: CRA-S-2732-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to the appellant accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019, relying on the compromise reached between the parties and the complainant’s no-objection affidavit. Justice Anoop Chitkara held that continued pre-trial incarceration would be unjustified where peace had been restored and the victim had expressly stated no grievance remained. The Court emphasized that personal liberty under Article 21 must not be curtailed unnecessarily and that bail serves as an opportunity for reform and reintegration.
Summary: The appellant, Jagjeet Singh, was accused of jointly operating fraudulent investment schemes through companies allegedly used to collect ₹11,41,000 from the complainant, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. The FIR, registered at Civil Lines Police Station, Sirsa, invoked multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), SC/ST Act, BUDS Act, and HPIDEF Act. The complainant alleged financial fraud, physical assault, and caste-based insults.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the dispute had been amicably settled and presented a no-objection affidavit from the complainant confirming the compromise. The State opposed bail citing the gravity of charges, but the Court noted that the complainant had formally withdrawn objections and that extended detention before trial would violate the appellant’s fundamental right to liberty.
Justice Chitkara cited constitutional and judicial precedents i.e. Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (1978), Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2011), and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2010) reiterating that denial of bail without timely trial effectively punishes an undertrial before conviction. He also relied on Prathvi Raj v. Union of India (2020), clarifying that anticipatory or regular bail can be granted under the SC/ST Act if no prima facie case exists.
Decision: Allowing the appeal, the Court ordered the appellant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond and surety of ₹10,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court. Conditions included appearing for trial, cooperating in the investigation, and refraining from influencing witnesses. The Court clarified that if the appellant commits any non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, the State may move to cancel bail. The order also reaffirmed the Amit Rana v. State of Haryana (2025) guideline permitting acceptance of verified downloaded copies of bail orders to avoid delay in release.