Punjab and Haryana HC grants bail on personal bond to murder accused

Court terms his custody merely on basis of allegation ‘overall travesty’

Terming custody an “overall travesty” in the case of a murder accused, who was denied bail by a lower court only on the basis that “serious allegations” were levelled against him, and despite the fact that the post-mortem report did not depict any injury on the deceased, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to the accused.

The court granted regular bail on a personal bond, holding that insisting on surety bonds from the petitioner would be “insult to injury”, the order said.

The judgment was given by Justice Anoop Chitkara on September 12, in a case that pertains to an alleged murder of a 70-year-old man at Dhano village of Malerkotla district in August 2021, in which the petitioner is one of the accused arrested by the police.

Justice Chitkara in his order pointed out that the allegations specifically stated the deceased’s death had been caused by fist and leg blows by the petitioner and other co-accused. “However, if reference is made to the relevant post-mortem report, these allegations are not substantiated as according to the report, there was no injury anywhere on the dead body. Even as per the CTL report, no poison was detected. In the status report reply, it has been explicitly stated that no injury was found on the body,” he said.

“Given the absence of injuries and absence of certain opinion linking the petitioner’s actions to the cause of death, the accused’s custody is as an overall travesty,” Justice Chitkara said in his order.

Without commenting on the case’s merits, the court order stated that in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner made a case for bail, and provided the accused was not required in any other case, the petitioner would be released on bail in the First Information Report (FIR) related to the case, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000.

“Considering the opinion in the post-mortem report, to insist on furnishing surety bonds (from the petitioner) would be an insult to injury, and thus, there would be no need to furnish surety bonds,” the order added.