P&H High Court Orders Inquiry Into Officers Responsible For Prolonged Murder Trial, Grants Interim Bail To Accused
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the District and Sessions Judge, Panipat, to conduct a fact-finding inquiry to identify the officials responsible for the prolonged pendency of an eight-year-old murder trial, while granting interim bail to an accused who has been in custody since 2018 for want of resources to furnish bail bonds despite an earlier bail order in his favour.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, "learned District and Sessions Judge, Panipat, shall examine the record and thereafter conduct an inquiry to ascertain the officer(s)/official(s) responsible for the prolonged pendency of the trial and the reasons attributable to them. Let the fact-finding inquiry report be forwarded to this Court so that suitable action may be taken in this regard, preferably within two months."
The Court was hearing a regular bail petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC (corresponding to Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS) and provisions of the Arms Act, arising out of the murder of one Parmod Gupta at his factory in Panipat in August 2018.
The prosecution case was that two masked assailants had come to a fabric-dyeing factory demanding money, and upon being questioned, fired at the complainant's father, resulting in his death. The petitioner had been in custody since the day of the incident, i.e., over eight years.
A co-accused, Ravi, had earlier been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench, and the present petitioner too had been granted interim bail in August 2023 on the ground that he had already spent nearly five years in custody, had no criminal antecedents, and that the trial, with only a fraction of witnesses examined was unlikely to conclude soon.
However, the petitioner could not avail of that concession, as he submitted before the Court that being unable to arrange bail bonds due to his financial circumstances, he continued to remain in custody despite the earlier order.
Pursuant to a query raised by the High Court, a report was called for from the District and Sessions Judge, Panipat, on the status of the trial. The report revealed that even after about eight years, the trial remained pending, with only 16-17 out of 27 prosecution witnesses examined.
The Court observed that the report suggested either that the accused were not being produced before the Trial Court on the dates fixed by the jail authorities, or that witnesses had been remiss in appearing to depose.
The Court noted that the petitioner was 21 years old at the time of the incident and had not seen life outside prison since, and that it would be unrealistic to expect a positive outlook from an undertrial who had suffered prolonged incarceration without the charges against him being proved. It further observed that if an accused were to remain in custody for years only to eventually be acquitted, there would be no satisfactory answer available with the courts or other agencies for such a state of affairs.
Considering that the petitioner had a clean record apart from the present case and was not facing any other proceedings, the Court ordered his release on interim bail, subject to furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or the concerned Duty Magistrate.
The matter has been listed next on November 12, 2026.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Chetan Juneja,
Advocate Counsel for State: Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Assistant A.G., Haryana Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate