The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a trial court is duty bound to decide a pending bail application where the High Court has granted no stay, and cannot keep adjourning it simply to await the outcome of a related transfer petition.

Justice Ramesh Kumari, allowing a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, observed that in the absence of any interim stay, the trial court "is duty bound to decide the bail application." The Court strongly deprecated the trial court's practice of repeatedly adjourning the petitioner's bail plea only to await orders in the transfer petition.

The petitioner husband, was booked along with four family members in an FIR dated June 23, 2026, registered at Police Station Women, Sirsa, under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506, 420, 354-A and 34 IPC (corresponding to Sections 85, 115(2), 316(2), 351, 318(4), 75 and 3(5) of the BNS), on a complaint by his wife following matrimonial discord. The couple had married in November 2023.

The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court), Sirsa, granted interim anticipatory bail to the four co-accused family members by orders dated July 10 and July 18, 2026. The complainant then approached the High Court seeking transfer of their bail applications, but no stay was granted in that petition.

The petitioner's own anticipatory bail application was filed on July 24, 2026, and notice was issued the same day. Counsel submitted that despite several opportunities, the application was not decided. When the petitioner moved an application seeking a decision on it, the trial court dismissed that application on September 14, 2026, on the ground that the transfer petition was pending before the High Court.

Counsel for the complainant argued that the transfer petitions were still undecided, and since the trial court had already granted interim relief to the co-accused, deciding the husband's bail plea would cause prejudice to her.

Rejecting this, the High Court noted that no stay had been issued in the transfer petition and that the bail application had remained pending only because of it. Setting aside the September 14 order, the Court directed the trial court to decide the bail application within five working days of receiving a certified copy of the order, after hearing both sides and duly considering and discussing all documents placed on record by the parties.

The Court declined the petitioner's other prayers, including a stay on his arrest and a direction against coercive action, holding that they did not call for its indulgence since the bail application was to be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.

Case Title: Parteek Goel v. State of Haryana and Another

Appearance: Mr. Harsh Chopra and Ms. Simran Kaur Bhatti, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

Click here to read order