Court emphasizes the need for substantial change in circumstances for successive bail petitions; directs expeditious trial in view of prolonged custody and serious allegations.
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed the second bail petition filed by Anshul Garg, accused in a high-profile spurious liquor case in Haryana. The court highlighted that successive bail petitions are permissible only if there is a substantial change in circumstances since the previous petition, a standard that was not met in this case.
The case involves Anshul Garg and several co-accused, implicated in the manufacture and distribution of illicit liquor that allegedly resulted in multiple fatalities. The prosecution alleges that Garg played a crucial role by supplying Extra Neutral Alcohol, a primary component in the spurious liquor, although his name was not initially mentioned in the FIR. The court observed that the petitioner’s implication arose from subsequent investigations, which uncovered a broader conspiracy.
Despite the petitioner's arguments citing prolonged custody and the absence of direct evidence, the court found the gravity of the allegations and Garg’s criminal antecedents to be compelling reasons for denying bail. The court noted that the trial is currently at the evidence stage, with a substantial number of witnesses yet to be examined.
Justice Goel also addressed the concern of delayed trials, underscoring the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21. The court directed the lower court to expedite the trial, ideally concluding it within a year, and suggested the adoption of a day-to-day trial process if necessary.
The judgment reiterates the judiciary's cautious approach to bail in cases involving serious allegations and underscores the balance between individual liberty and societal interests. It also reflects the court’s proactive stance in ensuring swift justice, both to the accused and the victims, by mandating timely trial proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Second or successive bail petitions are maintainable under law; however, they require demonstration of substantial change in circumstances, and not superficial or technical changes, to warrant reconsideration.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 483, 528, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Indian Penal Code Sections 120-B, 201, 307, 302, 328, Punjab Excise Act, 1914 Section 72-A
Anshul Garg v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2863466
