Court directs inquiry into prolonged trial delays and remissness of witnesses; emphasizes protection of accused's rights amid slow judicial process
In a significant ruling on August 26, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Vashisth, granted regular bail to Neeraj, an accused in a high-profile criminal case involving charges under the Arms Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner had been in custody since August 10, 2018, accused in a case related to a fatal shooting incident at a textile factory in Panipat.
The case arose from an incident where two masked youths allegedly fired at Parmod Gupta, resulting in his death. Neeraj and co-accused were apprehended at the scene with weapons. Despite the seriousness of the charges, including murder under Section 302 IPC and multiple Arms Act violations, the trial has faced extensive delays, spanning nearly eight years, with only partial examination of prosecution witnesses.
The Court took note of the fact that Neeraj had been in custody for more than five years without trial conclusion, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration without verdict can cause grave injustice and affect the accused's mental and physical well-being. The petitioner suffers from a serious kidney condition requiring urgent medical attention, further strengthening the bail plea.
Key points highlighted by the Court include:
- The petitioner has no prior criminal record and has not been implicated in any other case.
- The trial is progressing at a snail's pace, with 14 out of 21 prosecution witnesses examined as of the interim bail order dated May 25, 2023, and many witnesses still to be recorded.
- The petitioner is not required for any further custodial interrogation, and there is no risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
- The petitioner had been granted interim bail previously but remained in custody due to inability to furnish bail bonds.
Justice Vashisth expressed concern over the systemic issues causing trial delays, including the failure of jail authorities to produce accused persons on court dates and the remissness of prosecution witnesses. The Court directed the District and Sessions Judge of Panipat to conduct a fact-finding inquiry to identify the officers responsible for these delays and submit a report within two months.
The Court ordered Neeraj's release on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds, allowing him to regain his liberty pending trial. However, it was clarified that any involvement in further offenses while on bail would lead to cancellation of this concession.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing the interests of justice with the fundamental rights of the accused, especially in cases where prolonged pre-trial detention violates the principle of timely justice.
Bottom Line:
Bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) allowed due to prolonged custody of the petitioner, absence of previous criminal history, and significant delay in trial proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act, Sections 302 and 34 of IPC, Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 483 of BNSS
Neeraj v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2970383
