File photo: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
Photo: Nk8595
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0
Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedK.U. v. State of Punjab
CRM-M-34472-2026 (O&M)
- Court
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- Date of Decision
- 8 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice Sanjay Vashisth
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120-B, 199, 200, 211, 384, 388, 389, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
Final Outcome
Petition allowed; the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case; petition disposed of (paras 8, 11).
Key holdings
- Custody since 13.03.2024, about two years and five months, was treated as a substantial period (para 8).
- Both co-accused had been granted bail; one was later declared innocent during investigation (para 8).
- With all offences triable by a Magistrate and only 2 of 30 witnesses examined, the trial would take considerable time (para 8).
- The Court suggested considering a national-level portal of antecedents in repeated-complaint cases, with safeguards (para 9).
- The observations are not an opinion on the merits; the trial court is to decide independently and expeditiously (para 10).
Brief Facts
The petitioner filed a second petition under Section 483 BNSS for regular bail in an FIR of 08.08.2023 registered at the State Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar, under Sections 120-B, 199, 200, 211, 384, 388, 389, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC; the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.02.2026 (para 1). The prosecution case, after an investigation by the AIG, Crime Zone, Amritsar, is that a co-accused, in connivance with the petitioner, got multiple cases registered on false allegations of rape to extort money (para 2). The petitioner relied on custody since 13.03.2024, bail granted to both co-accused and the slow trial (paras 3-4). The State called the allegations serious and opposed bail (para 5).
Court's Findings
The Court took into account that the petitioner had been in custody since 13.03.2024 and had already undergone a substantial period of about two years and five months (para 8). One co-accused had been granted bail by the trial court on 22.09.2023 and was later declared innocent during investigation; the other was granted bail by a co-ordinate bench on 04.07.2025 after about one year and three months in custody (para 8). All the offences are triable by a Magistrate, and only 2 of the 30 prosecution witnesses had been examined, with one given up (para 8). On these facts the Court held that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude, and allowed the petition without expressing any opinion on the merits (para 8). Before parting, it observed that technology now allows information to be shared across jurisdictions, and that in cases of repeated or habitual complaints there is a need to consider a national-level portal or database of antecedents, subject to safeguards and verification, for investigating agencies, while protecting "the rights and privacy of individuals" (para 9).
Legal Principle
Long pre-trial custody, bail already granted to the co-accused, offences triable by a Magistrate and a trial in which only 2 of 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined together show that the trial is likely to take considerable time, and justify regular bail without any opinion on the merits (para 8).
