BALJINDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN V. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR 2025 INSC 796:

DATE: 16/05/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharm

FACTS:

This case arises from an incident leading to the registration of FIR No. 30 dated 22.03.2023 under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, later amended to include Sections 34, 427, and 120B while deleting Sections 148 and 149. The FIR was lodged at Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar, Punjab, based on the complaint of the appellant, who runs a crusher under the name 'Sat Sahib' and owns approximately 65 acres of land in village Taraf Majri, Tehsil Nangal. The complainant alleged that on the night of 22.03.2023, he received a phone call informing him that the accused, Mandeep Singh alias Bhoda (accused No. 1) and Narinder Kumar alias Nindi (accused No. 2), along with 7–8 others, had forcibly entered his land, dismantled the barbed wire fencing, and were hurling abuses. The appellant rushed to the location along with his driver (Anil, since deceased), Deepak Kumar, and Chowkidar Bahadur Singh. Upon reaching the site, their vehicle, a Land Cruiser, was allegedly rammed by a Fortuner driven by the accused. Accused No. 1 then struck Anil with a wooden stick on the head, while accused No. 2 and others assaulted the rest. The complainant claims he witnessed the assault but fled due to fear. The deceased was later taken to a hospital by the accused, where he was declared dead.

Following the registration of the FIR, both respondents were arrested on 23.03.2023 and sent to judicial custody. The investigation was initially conducted by the local police, but was later transferred to Ms. Darpan Ahluwalia, IPS, following a complaint from Dev Raj (father of accused No. 2). The first charge sheet was submitted on 20.06.2023 by the SHO, Police Station Nangal, and the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. A supplementary charge sheet was later filed on 09.10.2023 based on further investigation. Meanwhile, the respondents filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking quashing of the charge sheet. The High Court, by order dated 15.12.2023, restrained the trial court from proceeding further, which remains in effect. Dissatisfied, the appellant's challenge before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 13.05.2024, although liberty was granted to seek early hearing from the High Court. However, the High Court refused to entertain the appellant’s application on 16.07.2024. Subsequently, the respondents' applications for regular bail were dismissed by the trial court in May 2024 due to the gravity of the offence and accused No. 1’s criminal history. The respondents then approached the High Court again through CRM-M-35115/2024 and CRM-M-36312/2024. On 14.11.2024, the High Court granted them bail, setting aside the trial court’s order. The appellant has now approached the Supreme Court challenging this bail order.

ISSUES:

The primary issues presented in this case were whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court was justified in granting regular bail to the accused despite the seriousness of the charges under Sections 302, 323, 34, 427, and 120B of the IPC, and whether such an order could be sustained in light of the trial court’s earlier decision denying bail based on the gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of one of the accused. Additionally, the case raised the issue of whether the High Court had erred by not giving due weight to relevant factors such as the nature of the crime, potential threat to witnesses, and the possibility of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the complainant, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated 14.11.2024 that had granted regular bail to the accused. The Court restored the Sessions Court's earlier order denying bail and directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the jurisdictional magistrate or concerned police station on or before 16.06.2025. Further, the accused were ordered to deposit their passports with the Police Station, Nangal, by 19.05.2025. In case of non-compliance, the police were directed to arrest them.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order granting bail warranted interference as it did not adequately consider material factors such as the gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedents of accused No. 1, against whom eight other criminal cases had been registered. The Apex Court emphasized that the Sessions Court had rightly denied bail, citing the serious nature of the charges, which include murder and conspiracy under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Court noted that granting bail in such cases, particularly without thorough scrutiny, risks undermining the administration of criminal justice and may negatively impact the confidence of victims and the public in the judicial system.

The Court also took into account the procedural history of the case, including the fact that the accused were already benefitting from the interim protection granted by the High Court, which had halted the trial proceedings. The Apex Court underlined that the accused cannot be allowed to misuse the judicial process or delay the trial indefinitely by securing bail despite serious allegations and prior rejection of bail by the trial court. The Court stressed the importance of judicial consistency and found that the High Court’s bail order lacked sufficient justification to overturn the well-reasoned denial by the Sessions Court. Therefore, to uphold the rule of law and ensure a fair trial, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to restore the order of the Sessions Court.

ANALYSIS:

This case presents a significant illustration of judicial scrutiny over the discretionary power of High Courts to grant bail in serious criminal matters involving grave charges such as murder (Section 302 IPC) and conspiracy (Section 120B IPC). The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the principle that bail, particularly in heinous offences, should not be granted in a perfunctory manner or solely on procedural grounds, especially when there are strong prima facie allegations and established criminal antecedents. The trial court had carefully evaluated the nature of the offence, the role attributed to each accused, and the broader implications of their release on the integrity of the judicial process. Accused No. 1 was noted to be a habitual offender, facing eight other criminal cases, which the Sessions Court rightly considered while rejecting the bail plea. However, the High Court overlooked these critical facts and proceeded to grant bail, which the Supreme Court deemed to be an act of judicial improvidence.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s analysis also brought attention to the misuse of procedural mechanisms by the accused to prolong proceedings and avoid trial. The interim order of the High Court had effectively stalled the trial since December 2023, thereby undermining the objective of expeditious disposal of criminal cases. The Apex Court noted that such delays, coupled with the grant of bail, can embolden accused persons and demoralize victims and witnesses, who may feel unsafe or disillusioned with the justice system. The ruling reflects a larger concern for the credibility of the criminal justice process and ensures that the balance between personal liberty and public interest is maintained. In this context, the Court’s direction to surrender and deposit passports within a specified timeline serves both as a corrective and preventive measure, reinforcing that liberty granted by a court cannot become a shield for abuse of process or evasion of justice.