P&H: Complinant was declared hostile and all private witnesses exaimed -Grants Bail

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 01 May 2026
Headnotes

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.483 — Regular bail — Second petition — Petitioner in custody for 1 year 10 months and 8 days - Complainant was declared hostile - All private witnesses examined - First bail petition not decided on merits - Trial in progress and nothing left to be recovered - No material that the petitioner would tamper with evidence or not cooperate - Continued detention would serve no purpose - Bail granted. (Paras 8, 13 and 14)


Facts of the Case

P&H: Complinant was declared hostile and all private witnesses exaimed - Grants Bail

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail in a case arising from an FIR registered at Kurukshetra University Police Station, noting that the complainant has turned hostile and that continued incarceration would serve no purpose.

According to the FIR lodged by the petitioner's wife, there was an alleged attempt on her life with revolver that misfired. The State opposed bail, but placed on record the custody certificate. The Court recorded that the petitioner has been in custody for one year, ten months and eight days. The defence argued that the complainant had not supported the prosecution case during trial and was declared hostile, all private witnesses have been examined, nothing remains to be recovered, and there is no risk of tampering with evidence or absconding.

The first bail petition had not been decided on merits. Court relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasising that presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule are central to criminal jurisprudence, citing Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. The Court also underscored that prolonged undertrial incarceration infringes the right to speedy trial under Article 21, referring to Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh and Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab.

Finding that the trial is underway, that the complainant’s testimony does not support the prosecution, and that there is no material indicating risk of evidence tampering, the Court concluded that further detention would serve no purpose. The petition was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions that he shall not leave India without prior permission.

Quick Info
⚖️ Court punjab haryana
Tags
• Open Full Judgment •