Court Notes No Witness Examined Out of 29 Prosecution Witnesses; Holds Prolonged Incarceration and Slow Trial Progress Justified Bail Consideration
Chandigarh: The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a 35-year-old woman accused in a murder case registered at Sirsa, observing that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial accused and delay in conclusion of trial require consideration of the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Sumeet Goel, while deciding CRM-M-32535-2026 (O&M) titled Nirmal @ Neelam @ Anju vs State of Haryana on 24.09.2026, allowed the third regular bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The case relates to FIR No. 896 dated 19.11.2023 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa, District Sirsa, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the death of Sangeet Nath.
The High Court considered several factors including the petitioner’s custody period of more than 2 years and 10 months, the fact that no prosecution witness had been examined despite the filing of challan, and the likelihood that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from a criminal case registered following the death of Sangeet Nath. The petitioner, Nirmal @ Neelam @ Anju, approached the High Court seeking regular bail after remaining in custody since 21.11.2023. The bail petition was filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, which empowers the High Court to consider regular bail applications in serious criminal cases. The prosecution case involved allegations under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, relating to murder and common intention.
Third Bail Petition Filed Before High Court
The present petition was not the first bail application filed by the petitioner. The Court noted that this was the third attempt by the petitioner seeking regular bail. The earlier regular bail plea was dismissed as not pressed on 24.02.2026. However, while considering the present petition, the Court examined whether any substantial change in circumstances had occurred after the earlier proceedings. The petitioner relied upon the subsequent passage of time, prolonged custody and slow progress of trial as changed circumstances requiring fresh consideration.
Arguments Advanced on Behalf of Petitioner
The petitioner was represented by Ms. Prabhjot Kaur Virk, Advocate. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that she had been falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that:
- The petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR;
- The case was not based on an eye-witness account;
- She had already remained in custody for more than 2 years and 10 months;
- The trial had not progressed despite a substantial period having passed.
The defence further highlighted that out of the total 29 prosecution witnesses cited in the case, not a single prosecution witness had been examined till date. On this basis, it was argued that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose and the petitioner deserved the concession of regular bail.
State Opposes Bail Due to Serious Allegations
The State opposed the bail application. The State counsel argued that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature and therefore she should not be granted bail. The State also placed the custody certificate dated 22.09.2026 on record before the Court. Pasted markdown The State was represented by Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
High Court Examines Custody Period and Trial Progress
After hearing both sides and examining the record, Justice Sumeet Goel considered the stage of the criminal proceedings. The Court noted that:
- The petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2023;
- Challan was presented on 12.03.2024;
- A total of 29 prosecution witnesses had been cited;
- None of the prosecution witnesses had been examined till the date of hearing.
The Court observed that completion of the trial would take considerable time. The Court considered that an accused cannot remain incarcerated indefinitely when trial proceedings are not progressing.
Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment Regarding Speedy Trial
While considering the bail plea, the High Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Another. The Supreme Court had emphasised the importance of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court referred to the principle that if the State or prosecuting agencies are unable to ensure speedy trial, the seriousness of the alleged offence alone cannot become the sole ground to oppose bail.
The Supreme Court observation relied upon by the High Court states that Article 21 applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
Court Considers Petitioner’s Age and Antecedents
The High Court also considered certain personal circumstances of the petitioner. The Court noted that:
- The petitioner was a lady aged 35 years;
- She had clean antecedents;
- She had remained in custody for more than 2 years and 10 months.
The Court observed that there was nothing tangible on record indicating that the petitioner was likely to abscond or interfere with prosecution evidence.
Court Avoids Detailed Examination of Evidence at Bail Stage
The High Court observed that the rival submissions raised debatable issues which would ultimately be examined during the trial. The Court held that it would not be appropriate at the bail stage to undertake a detailed analysis of the evidence, as the same may prejudice the trial proceedings. The Court restricted its consideration to factors relevant for deciding the bail application.
Successive Bail Petition Maintainable After Change in Circumstances
The Court also dealt with the issue of the maintainability of the third bail petition. The High Court referred to its earlier judgment in Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and Another, which explains the principles governing successive bail applications. The Court noted that a subsequent bail petition is maintainable where there is a substantial change in circumstances. The judgment relied upon by the Court states that successive bail petitions cannot be rejected merely because an earlier petition was dismissed, withdrawn or not pressed, but the applicant must demonstrate a substantial and effective change in circumstances.
Prolonged Custody Considered Substantial Change
Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the extended custody period and pace of trial constituted relevant changed circumstances. The Court noted that despite earlier proceedings, the petitioner continued to remain in custody and the trial had not substantially progressed. The Court held that further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
High Court Grants Regular Bail
After considering the complete circumstances, the High Court allowed the petition. The Court ordered release of Nirmal @ Neelam @ Anju on regular bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
Conditions Imposed by High Court
While granting bail, the Court imposed several conditions upon the petitioner.
The petitioner was directed:
- Not to misuse the liberty granted;
- Not to tamper with oral or documentary evidence;
- Not to remain absent before the Trial Court;
- Not to commit any offence while on bail;
- To deposit passport, if any, with the Trial Court;
- To provide her mobile number to the Investigating Officer/SHO;
- Not to change mobile number without prior permission;
- Not to delay 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.
Court Clarifies Order Will Not Affect Trial
The High Court specifically clarified that the observations made in the bail order should not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The Trial Court will decide the matter independently on the basis of evidence produced during trial.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
The order reiterates the importance of balancing the seriousness of criminal allegations with constitutional safeguards available to an accused. The decision highlights that while the nature of allegations is an important factor in bail matters, courts must also consider:
- Period of custody;
- Progress of trial;
- Possibility of delay;
- Rights guaranteed under Article 21.
The judgment also reinforces that repeated bail petitions can be considered when there is a genuine change in circumstances, especially prolonged incarceration and lack of progress in trial.
Conclusion
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order dated 24.09.2026 in Nirmal @ Neelam @ Anju vs State of Haryana provides relief to a woman accused of murder who had remained in custody for nearly three years without substantial progress in trial. The Court took note that the petitioner had been in custody since November 2023, challan had already been presented, but none of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined. While the allegations under Sections 302 and 34 IPC were serious, the Court held that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial accused must be examined in light of the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21.
Accordingly, considering the custody period, slow pace of proceedings, personal circumstances of the petitioner and absence of material indicating risk of absconding or interference with evidence, the High Court granted regular bail subject to strict conditions.
The Court, however, made it clear that the observations in the bail order would not influence the final adjudication of the criminal trial.
LawDaily.org | Legal News & Court Updates