Sole Eye Witness Turns Hostile; Court Holds Prolonged Incarceration and Slow Trial Progress Justify Release on Regular Bail
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Sukhjinder Singh alias Bhola, an accused facing trial in a murder case registered at Police Station Sadar Sangrur, after noting that he had remained in custody for more than three years and that the trial was progressing slowly.
Justice Sumeet Goel, while deciding CRA-S-904-2026 (O&M) titled Sukhjinder Singh @ Bhola versus State of Punjab and Another on 22.09.2026, allowed the appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and ordered release of the appellant on regular bail subject to conditions.
The Court also condoned a delay of 327 days in filing the appeal before proceeding to examine the bail request. The judgment highlights the importance of balancing the seriousness of criminal allegations with the constitutional right of an accused to a speedy trial, particularly where the accused has remained incarcerated for a prolonged period without conclusion of proceedings.
Case Background
The matter arose from FIR No. 103 dated 04.08.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Sangrur, District Sangrur. The FIR was initially registered for offences under Sections:
- 307 IPC (attempt to murder);
- 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt);
- 341 IPC (wrongful restraint);
- 148 IPC (rioting armed with deadly weapon);
- 149 IPC (unlawful assembly).
During investigation, more serious offences were added, including:
- Section 302 IPC (murder);
- Section 325 IPC;
- Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy);
- Section 201 IPC;
- Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The FIR related to the murder of Sikander Singh.
Third Bail Attempt Before High Court
The present proceedings were the third attempt by the appellant seeking regular bail. The appellant approached the High Court challenging the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby his bail request had been declined. The appellant sought release on regular bail under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Arguments on Behalf of Appellant
Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Mr. Puneet Bali submitted that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that although the allegations were serious, the appellant had already undergone incarceration since 05.08.2023, meaning that he had remained in custody for more than three years. The counsel further submitted that the FIR complainant, who was also the alleged sole eye witness, had turned hostile before the Trial Court. The testimony of the complainant had already been brought on record before the High Court. It was also argued that several important prosecution witnesses had already been examined and therefore there was no likelihood of the appellant influencing the trial or tampering with evidence. The counsel further highlighted that the appellant was around 60 years of age and deserved the concession of regular bail considering the overall circumstances.
State Opposes Bail Citing Serious Allegations
The State opposed the bail application, submitting that the allegations against the appellant were serious in nature. The State argued that considering the nature of offences, including murder and offences under the SC/ST Act, the appellant should not be granted regular bail. The State also placed the custody certificate dated 15.09.2026 on record.
The complainant’s counsel also sought to oppose the bail plea. However, when the Court specifically asked about the complainant having turned hostile before the Trial Court and the basis for opposing the appeal, no clear response was forthcoming.
Court Examines Trial Progress and Custody Period
After hearing both sides and examining the record, the High Court noted the progress of the criminal trial. The Court recorded that:
- The appellant was arrested on 05.08.2023;
- Investigation was thereafter conducted;
- Challan was presented on 30.10.2023;
- Charges were framed on 12.04.2024.
The prosecution had cited a total of 40 witnesses, out of which only 9 witnesses had been examined, while 9 witnesses had already been given up. The Court observed that conclusion of the trial would take considerable time.
Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment Regarding Speedy Trial
The High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Another, where the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of speedy trial as a constitutional right under Article 21. The Supreme Court had observed that if the State or prosecution agency does not have the ability to ensure speedy trial, the accused cannot be denied bail merely because the alleged crime is serious. The judgment also reiterated that an accused remains presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Sole Eye Witness Turning Hostile Considered Important Factor
The High Court observed that the factual circumstances of the case required consideration, particularly:
- The appellant’s custody exceeding three years;
- The complainant/sole eye witness having turned hostile before the Trial Court;
- The stage of trial.
Considering these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant regular bail to the appellant. The Court also observed that the rival contentions raised by both sides involved debatable issues which would be examined during trial. At the bail stage, the Court did not find it appropriate to undertake a detailed examination of the evidence as it could prejudice the trial.
Other FIRs Not Alone Ground to Deny Bail
The custody certificate placed before the Court indicated that the appellant was involved in other FIRs. However, the High Court observed that such involvement by itself could not become the sole ground for refusing bail in the present FIR when the facts and circumstances of the present case justified consideration of bail. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs State of U.P. and Another while considering this aspect.
Third Bail Petition and Change in Circumstances
The Court noted that the present application was the third attempt by the appellant. The previous bail plea had been dismissed as withdrawn on 02.09.2025, with a direction to expedite trial proceedings and record testimony of prime witnesses preferably within six months. However, while considering the present plea, the Court found substantial change in circumstances, particularly:
- Further passage of time;
- Continued incarceration;
- Slow pace of trial proceedings;
- Examination of important witnesses.
The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and Another, regarding maintainability of successive bail applications where there is substantial change in circumstances.
High Court Grants Regular Bail
After considering the complete factual background, the High Court held that further detention of the appellant as an undertrial was not warranted. The Court allowed the appeal and ordered release of Sukhjinder Singh alias Bhola on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
Conditions Imposed by Court
While granting bail, the High Court imposed several conditions upon the appellant, including:
- He shall not misuse the liberty granted;
- He shall not tamper with oral or documentary evidence;
- He shall not remain absent before the Trial Court;
- He shall not commit any offence while on bail;
- He shall deposit his passport, if any;
- He shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer/SHO;
- He shall not change his mobile number without prior permission;
- He shall not delay the trial proceedings.
The Court further clarified that in case of violation of bail conditions, the State or complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Counsel Appearing Before High Court
The appellant was represented by:
Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate.
The State of Punjab was represented by:
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Respondent No. 2 was represented by:
Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Deepesh Kakkar, Advocate.
Legal Significance of Judgment
The judgment reiterates that seriousness of allegations is an important factor while considering bail, but it cannot be the only consideration. The Court emphasised that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial accused, coupled with slow progress of trial, requires judicial consideration in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. The order also highlights that where material developments occur after rejection of earlier bail applications, including examination of key witnesses or substantial delay in trial, a subsequent bail application can be considered.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with CRA-S-904-2026 (O&M), granted regular bail to Sukhjinder Singh alias Bhola, who had remained in custody for more than three years in a murder case registered at Sangrur. The Court took note of the fact that the trial was progressing slowly, only nine out of forty prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the FIR complainant, stated to be the sole eye witness, had turned hostile before the Trial Court. While the allegations involved serious offences including murder and provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Court held that continued incarceration of an undertrial accused cannot continue indefinitely when the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is affected. The Court accordingly allowed the appeal and directed release of the appellant on regular bail subject to stringent conditions, while making it clear that the observations made in the order would not affect the merits of the pending criminal trial.
LawDaily.org | Legal News & Court Updates