High Court sets aside order deferring bail application of petitioner citing pendency of co-accused's transfer petition without stay order; mandates decision within 5 working days
Chandigarh, 23 September 2026: In a significant judgment aimed at curbing undue delays in criminal proceedings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Justice Mrs. Ramesh Kumari, has ordered the expeditious disposal of a bail application pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Special (Fast Track Court), Sirsa. The case involved Parteek Goel, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 67 dated 23 June 2026, registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code including 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 354-A (sexual harassment), and others, related to matrimonial discord.
The petitioner's bail application had been repeatedly adjourned by the trial court on the ground that a transfer petition filed by the complainant against co-accused persons was pending before the High Court. The petitioner argued that no interim stay had been granted on the transfer petition, thus there was no legal basis to withhold adjudication of his bail plea. The High Court agreed with this contention, highlighting that the trial court's practice of deferring the bail hearing solely due to the pendency of the co-accused's transfer petition was "highly depreciated."
The Court emphasized the trial court's duty to decide bail applications on their own merits expeditiously, irrespective of related proceedings involving co-accused, particularly where no stay order exists. It was noted that co-accused individuals had already been granted interim bail, further underscoring the need for timely consideration of the petitioner's plea.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order dated 14 September 2026, which had refused to take up the bail application. It directed the Additional Sessions Judge to dispose of the petitioner's bail application within five working days upon receipt of the certified copy of the High Court's order. The trial court was also instructed to give a detailed hearing to both parties, consider all documents on record, and decide the matter in accordance with law.
The judgment sends a clear message against procedural delays in bail matters, reinforcing the principle that pendency of related petitions does not justify postponement of bail hearings when no restraining orders are in place. The Court's intervention ensures protection of the petitioner's right to a fair and timely judicial process.
Bottom Line:
Bail application cannot be kept pending merely because a transfer petition relating to co-accused is pending before High Court, when no stay order has been granted; trial Court is duty bound to decide the bail application expeditiously.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Cr.P.C.), Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506, 420, 354-A, 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Parteek Goel v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990594
