'Liberty Is Not Cosmetic, It's Real': P&H High Court Grants Bail To Accused Kept In Custody Even After SC Set Aside Conviction

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an accused who remained in custody for over 15 years despite the restoration of his acquittal by the Supreme Court.Emphasising the primacy of personal liberty, the Court observed that “liberty is not cosmetic, it's real,” while holding that continued incarceration in the absence of a subsisting conviction cannot be justified.Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur noted, "Although the applicant- respondent No.4 was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in FIR No. 427 dated 18.09.2003 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the applicant shall not be released unless he completes 20 years of actual sentence which implies that respondent No.4 has to remain in custody in the above said FIR, therefore, what is the implication of the present grant of bail. Every criminal trial has to be dealt independent of the others unless otherwise permitted in law. 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."The case arises out of FIR lodged in murder case in 2006 involving offences under Sections 302, 387, 120-B IPC among others. The trial court had, in 2009, acquitted 32 out of 33 accused, convicting only one. Subsequently, the High Court, in an appeal filed by the State, reversed the acquittal of certain accused including the present applicant and convicted them.However, the Supreme Court in 2014 set aside the High Court's judgment on the ground that the accused were not afforded adequate hearing, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. As a result, the High Court noted that the status of the applicant reverted to that of an acquitted person.Rejecting the present application for suspension of sentence, the Court held that such a plea is maintainable only where a sentence exists. Since the conviction stood set aside and the matter was remanded, the applicant could not be treated as undergoing a sentence."In the present case, Baljeet Singh [A23/R4] was acquitted by the trial court. 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. Once Baljeet was not sentenced, the application under Section 430 BNSS is not maintainable,"the Court observed.Hence, the Bench observed that “once the applicant is not under any sentence, an application for suspension of sentence is not maintainable,” and dismissed the plea on this ground.At the same time, the Court took serious note of the fact that the applicant continued to remain in custody for a prolonged period—over 12 years (over 15 years with remission)—despite his acquitted status in the present case following the Supreme Court's remand.Thus invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, the Court proceeded to consider the grant of bail to the applicant.Relying on the legal position under Section 431 BNSS (corresponding to Section 390 CrPC), the Court reiterated that in appeals against acquittal, the accused ordinarily ought to be admitted to bail, as the presumption of innocence stands reinforced by the acquittal.The Court emphasized that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” especially in cases involving acquitted persons, and that continued incarceration without a subsisting conviction would be unjustified.Accordingly, the Court granted bail to Baljeet Singh in the present FIR, subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety, and compliance with standard conditions.It clarified, however, that the applicant would continue to remain in custody in connection with other cases, including one where he is undergoing life imprisonment as upheld by the Supreme Court.The Court further directed that custody in the present case should not be counted, given that the acquittal stands restored after remand.The matter in the main appeal remains pending for adjudication on merits.Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana.Mr. Jeevanjot S. Kang, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3.Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.7 and 9.Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.10.Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Amicus Curiae.Title: STATE OF HARYANA V/S SURINDER SINGH AND ORSClick here to read order

'Liberty Is Not Cosmetic, It's Real': P&H High Court Grants Bail To Accused Kept In Custody Even After SC Set Aside Conviction

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

'Liberty Is Not Cosmetic, It's Real': P&H High Court Grants Bail To Accused Kept In Custody Even After SC Set Aside Conviction

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers