“Liberty Is Not Cosmetic”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail To Accused Despite Continued Custody In Separate Murder Case
The Court held that merely because the accused would continue to remain in custody in another murder case could not be a ground to deny him bail in an appeal arising from acquittal proceedings.
Justice Anoop Chitkara, Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an accused in an appeal arising out of acquittal proceedings, holding that even though he would continue to remain in custody in another murder case, he could not be denied bail in the present matter if otherwise entitled to relief under Section 431 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court was dealing with an application filed by Baljeet Singh seeking suspension of sentence in a criminal appeal arising out of an FIR registered in 2006 under Sections 302, 387, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. The matter arose from an appeal filed by the State of Haryana challenging the acquittal of multiple accused persons.
A Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur observed: “Needless to say that even if this Court grants bail to applicant- Baljeet Singh in the present case, he would still continue to be in custody in FIR No. 427 dated 18.09.2003 (supra) but it does not mean that this Court should not grant him bail, if he is otherwise entitled to bail under Section 431 BNSS in a case of acquittal. Liberty is not cosmetic, it is real.”
Shiva Khurmi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appeared for the State. Advocate Jeevanjot S. Kang appeared for the respondents, while Advocate H.S. Randhawa appeared as Amicus Curiae.
Background
The case arose out of an FIR registered at Police Station City Kaithal alleging a conspiracy involving ransom demands and the murder of a businessman. According to the prosecution's case, threats demanding ₹50 lakhs were allegedly made by several accused persons and the businessman was later shot dead outside his shop in March 2006.
Thirty-three accused persons were put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Baljeet Singh was arrayed as accused no.23.
By judgment dated March 9, 2009, the trial court convicted only one accused and acquitted the remaining 32 accused persons, including Baljeet Singh.
The State of Haryana thereafter filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of twelve accused persons. In February 2014, a Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the State’s appeal and reversed the acquittal of eight accused persons, including Baljeet Singh, convicting them under Sections 120-B, 302, read with 120-B and 386 IPC.
One of the convicted accused challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court, contending that neither the accused nor their counsel had been heard before the reversal of the acquittal. The Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 927 and 987 of 2014, set aside the High Court judgment and remanded the State’s appeal for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity of hearing to all parties.
The High Court noted that once the Supreme Court remanded the appeal against acquittal, the status of Baljeet Singh reverted to that of an acquitted accused.
Court’s Observation
The High Court first held that the application seeking suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS was itself not maintainable because, after remand by the Supreme Court, there was no operative sentence surviving against Baljeet Singh. The Court observed: “The acquittal was reversed by the High Court, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court had remanded the matter. It means Baljeet's status is that of an acquitted person, and he has not been sentenced.”
The Court further observed: “An application for suspension of sentence is maintainable only when there is a sentence.”
Although dismissing the application under Section 430 BNSS as not maintainable, the Court held that it was nevertheless required to exercise inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice since the accused continued to remain in custody despite restoration of his acquitted status after remand by the Supreme Court.
The Bench thereafter examined Section 431 BNSS, which empowers the High Court in an appeal against acquittal to either commit the accused to prison pending appeal or admit him to bail.
Referring to State of UP v. Poosu (1976), the Court observed that even in appeals against acquittal, discretion regarding arrest or bail must be exercised by considering factors such as the seriousness of allegations, the possibility of absconding and larger interests of justice.
The Court also relied upon Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State NCT of Delhi (2025), wherein the Supreme Court held that once an appeal against acquittal is admitted, the accused regains the status of an acquitted person and the presumption of innocence stands further strengthened.
The Bench reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception” and that only in “extreme and rare cases” should an acquitted accused be committed to prison under Section 390 CrPC, corresponding to Section 431 BNSS.
During the hearing, the State placed before the Court a custody certificate showing that Baljeet Singh was also serving a sentence in another murder case registered in 2003, wherein the Supreme Court had directed that he should not be released unless he completed 20 years of actual sentence.
However, the High Court held that pendency of custody in another FIR could not defeat the accused’s entitlement to bail in the present proceedings. The Bench observed: “Every criminal trial has to be dealt with independently of the others unless otherwise permitted in law.”
The Court accordingly granted bail to Baljeet Singh in the present FIR, subject to furnishing bonds and clarified that the order would not operate as a blanket bail or suspension of sentence in any other matter.
The Court also directed jail authorities not to count the custody undergone in the present case since the acquittal recorded by the trial court had been restored after remand by the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Baljeet Singh’s application seeking suspension of sentence under Section 430 BNSS as not maintainable, holding that after remand by the Supreme Court, his status reverted to that of an acquitted accused.
Exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS read with Section 431 BNSS, the Court nevertheless granted bail to Baljeet Singh in the present FIR and held that continued custody in another murder case could not be a ground to deny bail if otherwise legally justified.
The Court further clarified that the bail order was confined only to the present FIR and would not operate as a suspension of sentence or a grant of bail in any other criminal case.
Cause Title: State of Haryana v. Surinder Singh & Ors.
Appearances
Appellant: Shiva Khurmi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
Respondents: Jeevanjot S. Kang, Advocate; Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate; Brijender Kaushik, Advocate; H.S. Randhawa, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)