Introduction:

In Chhinder Kumar @ Chindi @ Shindi v. State of Punjab, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was called upon to decide a regular bail application in a sensational 2021 double murder case allegedly rooted in an honour killing. The matter was heard by Justice Sumeet Goel, who declined to grant bail to the petitioner, observing that offences of such nature “strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience.”

The prosecution case revolves around the brutal killing of a young couple who had solemnised a court marriage against the wishes of the woman’s family. The FIR was registered in District Moga, Punjab, under Sections 302 (murder), 452 (house trespass), 364 (kidnapping), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon) and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the allegations, the deceased Rohtash Singh had married Suman against her parents’ wishes. Fearing retaliation, the couple sought shelter at the residence of the complainant, Sukhdev Singh, in village Ronta. On 17 October 2021, at around noon, approximately 15–16 individuals allegedly arrived in three vehicles, scaled the boundary wall, forcibly entered the complainant’s house, assaulted the couple, abducted them in broad daylight, and fled after issuing threats over the love marriage. Subsequently, the bodies of the couple were allegedly discovered dumped in a street in village Sappan Wali, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka.

The petitioner was arrested on 05 November 2021, and the challan was presented on 31 January 2022. His earlier bail petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 08 January 2024. The present petition was filed seeking regular bail on grounds including prolonged custody and absence of specific allegations.

The High Court was thus required to balance the petitioner’s right to personal liberty against the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the offence, and the broader societal implications of crimes committed in the name of honour.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

Counsel for the petitioner advanced several submissions seeking regular bail.

First, it was argued that no specific overt act had been attributed to the petitioner. The prosecution allegations, according to the defence, were general and omnibus in nature, merely stating that he accompanied the principal accused. There was no direct assertion that he inflicted fatal injuries or played a decisive role in the murder. The defence emphasised that criminal liability cannot be presumed merely on the basis of presence, particularly when the prosecution fails to delineate an individualised role.

Second, the petitioner highlighted his clean antecedents. It was submitted that he had no prior criminal history and was not involved in any other offence. This, it was contended, diminished the likelihood of him being a habitual offender or posing a threat to society if enlarged on bail.

Third, the petitioner had been in custody since November 2021. The trial had progressed slowly, with only 2 out of 33 prosecution witnesses examined thus far. The defence argued that continued incarceration in such circumstances would amount to punitive detention rather than preventive custody. Since bail jurisprudence in India rests upon the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial was urged as a strong ground for bail.

Fourth, reliance was placed upon the High Court’s earlier ruling in Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana and another (2024:PHHC:054064), where it was held that successive bail petitions are maintainable if there is a substantial change in circumstances. The petitioner contended that the delay in trial and the passage of time since his arrest constituted such a substantial change.

Finally, it was argued that the petitioner would abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the Court, including regular appearance before the trial court, non-interference with witnesses, and surrender of passport. The defence maintained that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution could not be eclipsed solely on account of serious allegations when the individual’s specific role remained unclear.

Arguments on Behalf of the State and the Complainant:

The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, strongly opposed the grant of bail. The prosecution contended that the crime was not an isolated act but a meticulously planned and coordinated operation carried out by an unlawful assembly with a shared common object. The allegations disclosed a brutal abduction in broad daylight followed by a double murder, purportedly committed to avenge a love marriage deemed unacceptable by the woman’s family.

The prosecution emphasised that the petitioner was part of an unlawful assembly under Sections 148 and 149 IPC. Even if no specific overt act was attributed to him, Section 149 fastens vicarious liability upon every member of the unlawful assembly if the offence is committed in prosecution of the common object. Therefore, the absence of a particularised act could not dilute his criminal responsibility at this stage.

It was further submitted that the offence under Section 302 IPC is punishable with death or life imprisonment. The gravity and severity of punishment are key considerations in bail jurisprudence. Granting bail in such a case, the State argued, would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The prosecution also expressed apprehension that the petitioner, if released, might influence or intimidate witnesses. Several material witnesses were yet to be examined. Considering that the alleged crime stemmed from a family dispute and involved community sentiments, the possibility of pressure upon witnesses could not be ruled out.

The complainant’s counsel supported the State’s submissions, contending that the brutal nature of the crime and the manner in which it was executed — scaling walls, forcibly abducting the couple, and dumping their bodies — reflected extreme depravity. It was argued that such honour killings not only extinguish two lives but also terrorise society at large, deterring individuals from exercising their constitutional freedom to choose their life partners.

Thus, the State and complainant urged the Court to dismiss the bail petition.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

Justice Sumeet Goel, speaking for the Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, began by noting that there is no statutory bar on filing successive bail petitions. However, the sine qua non for entertaining such petitions is the existence of a substantial change in circumstances. The Court found that apart from the passage of time and partial progress of trial, no new circumstance of significance had arisen.

The Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, which enumerate factors to be considered while deciding bail applications. These include:

• Whether there is a prima facie case;
• Nature and gravity of the accusation;
• Severity of punishment in the event of conviction;
• Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice;
• Possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses;
• Larger societal impact.

Applying these parameters, the Court observed that the allegations pointed to a planned and coordinated double murder in the nature of an honour killing. The act was not spontaneous but allegedly executed by a group of individuals acting with a common object.

On the contention regarding absence of a specific overt act, the Court held that such an argument cannot be examined in detail at the stage of bail, particularly when provisions relating to unlawful assembly and common object have been invoked. At this preliminary stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence.

The Bench underscored that the offence was punishable with death or life imprisonment and involved the killing of two individuals. Crimes of such nature, it observed, “strike at the very root of public order and societal conscience.” Granting bail in such circumstances, the Court cautioned, could embolden accused persons and undermine the gravity of the offence.

The Court also took note of the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding possible influence over witnesses. Since several material witnesses were yet to be examined, and the allegations involved community and familial tensions, the apprehension could not be dismissed as unfounded.

Addressing the plea of prolonged custody, the Court held that mere delay in trial cannot, by itself, justify grant of bail in cases involving grave and heinous offences. While personal liberty is a cherished right, it must be balanced against societal interest and the need to ensure a fair trial.

Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the bail application. However, recognising the need to avoid undue delay, the Bench directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within one year. It further directed that progress reports be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court every two months. The concerned Senior Superintendent of Police was also instructed to take necessary steps to ensure effective progress of the case.

Thus, while denying bail, the Court simultaneously sought to safeguard the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial.