The Punjab & Haryana High Court in August 31, 2025 confirmed an interim bail granted to the Petitioner by rejecting the Respondent’s opposition based on criminal antecedents.
The case arose out of allegations of theft of a bicycle and a pair of shoes. The FIR was lodged with a delay of 10 days, even though CCTV footage had recorded the theft. The bicycle was subsequently recovered. The Petitioner, however, had multiple prior cases—seven FIRs between 2024–25 involving theft and house trespass provisions. His earlier bail applications were either withdrawn before the CJM or dismissed by the Sessions Court, which relied on his recidivist history. On 27 May 2025, he was granted interim bail by the High Court, which he complied with fully.
The High Court observed that criminal antecedents alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail. Referring to Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 382, it reiterated that even habitual offenders are not disentitled from bail; past conduct is only an additional factor for consideration. The Court further clarified the operation of Sections 478 and 480 of the BNSS, 2023, holding that Magistrates retain jurisdiction to grant bail in all cases triable by them, except where the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.The Court while criticising the prevailing reluctance of Magistrates to grant bail in minor cases, stressed on the constitutional presumption of innocence. It directed circulation of its order to all judicial officers across Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh to ensure consistency in bail practices.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the interim bail granted to the petitioner was allowed.
Appearances:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.
For the Respondents : Advs- Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab (R1),Mr. Naveen Kumar Sheoran, DAG, Haryana(R2), Mr. Manish Bansal, PP, UT Chandigarh, and Mr. Navjit Singh -UT Chandigarh (R3).
