logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 454 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 1341 of 2026 [Arising out of Slp (Crl.) No. 18775 of 2025]
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
Parties : Pardeep Kumar @ Banu Versus State of Punjab
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------- For the Respondent: ------
Date of Judgment : 13-03-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code - Sections 386, 307, 506 and 120-B -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Sections 386, 307, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
- Sections 25(6) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
- Sections 482 and 411 of IPC

2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Appeal
- Incarceration without trial
- Punishment

3. Summary:
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejected the appellant’s bail application. The appellant was arrested under IPC and Arms Act offences and has been in custody for almost two years without trial. The appellate court noted the delay and the lack of examination of witnesses, deeming continued detention unnecessary. It set aside the lower court’s order and granted bail, subject to conditions and bond. The court emphasized that the bail order does not constitute a finding on the merits and warned of cancellation upon breach. The appeal was allowed.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by the impugned judgment and order dated 11th July, 2025, has rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail.

3. Appellant, figuring as an accused in FIR No.17 dated 11th February, 2024 registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab under Sections 386, 307, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and Sections 25(6) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 482 and 411 of IPC added later on), was arrested on 13th April, 2024.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses to drive home the charges against the appellant, but none has been examined. Thus, the trial is likely to take some time to conclude.

6. Almost two years have passed since the appellant was arrested without trial having commenced and conclusion thereof nowhere being in sight. Incarceration without trial amounts to punishment.

7. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that further detention of the appellant pending trial is not necessary; and, since the appeal deserves acceptance, the appellant may be admitted to an order for grant of bail.

8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.

9. Appellant shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by it.

10. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court.

11. In the event there is any breach of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

12. It is also ordered that the appellant shall diligently attend proceedings of the trial, unless exempted. If he abstains from attending the proceedings without justifiable cause, that could also be seen as breach of the conditions for grant of bail and the trial court will be free to pass appropriate orders.

13. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal