Pre-Trial Punishment Unlawful: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Woman After Over 4 Years In Custody Without Trial Completion

A Bench of Justice Virender Singh said, “Considering the facts of the case, in the light of the above legal proposition of law, this Court is of the view that the chances of conclusion of trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not bright, as such, keeping the applicant in judicial custody, would be nothing, but, pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited under the law. Moreover, the applicant is presumed to be innocent till his guilt is proved by the prosecution, during the trial.”

The Court emphasized that in such circumstances, it was necessary to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice and the fairness of the legal process.

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by the village head of Bhagwania village, who informed the police about a dead body discovered near a cow shelter. The body was found wrapped inside a jute sack, with a black cloth tied around the neck and other visible injuries.

Upon registration of the FIR, the police initiated an investigation and identified the deceased—a 21-year-old male—based on inputs from local villagers. Further inquiry revealed that the deceased had been repeatedly calling a phone number that belonged to the applicant, identified as Homdei.

The investigation suggested that the deceased had allegedly been harassing the applicant through persistent phone calls. Upon learning about this, the applicant’s husband reportedly sought revenge. According to the prosecution, the applicant and her husband resided in a government residential quarter. The husband allegedly conspired with the room owner to kill the deceased.

On the day of the incident, when the husband found the deceased with his wife inside the room, he, along with the room owner, allegedly assaulted the deceased with a wooden stick, leading to his death. All three individuals, including the applicant, were subsequently arrested in connection with the murder.

As per police records, out of the 51 prosecution witnesses listed in the chargesheet, only 16 have been examined to date. A total of 31 witnesses are still to be presented, which indicates that the trial process is far from completion.

In its findings, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, where it was held that if a timely trial appears unlikely and the accused has already endured prolonged incarceration, courts are generally bound to consider bail. The Court applied this principle, stating that continued detention of the applicant would be unjust and serve no legitimate end.

The High Court held that there was no reasonable likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future and the applicant had already undergone significant incarceration (over four years) and continued detention would constitute punishment before conviction, contrary to the principles of criminal justice. It further added, “Furthermore, the applicant is also entitled for grant of bail on the basis of parity, as, her co-accused, namely Sanjay Sharma, has already been released on bail.”

The Court allowed the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was directed to be released on bail, subject to furnishing personal bonds and adequate sureties. The Court imposed strict conditions, requiring her to be present at all future trial proceedings and to cooperate fully with the legal process.

Cause Title: Hom Dei @Shallu v. State of Himachal Pradesh, [2025:HHC:13258]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Ranveer Singh, Ritesh Bhardwaj

Respondent: Advocate H.S. Rawat