Parteek Goel: Trial Court Cannot Adjourn Bail Plea Merely Because Transfer Petition Pending

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has firmly ruled that a trial court cannot keep adjourning a bail application solely because a transfer petition is pending before the High Court. Justice Ramesh Kumari, allowing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), directed the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court), Sirsa, to decide the bail plea within five working days.

Matrimonial Discord and Multiple Bail Applications

The case arises from a matrimonial dispute between petitioner Parteek Goel and his wife, the respondent. The couple married on November 27, 2023, but soon after, the wife lodged an FIR (No.67 dated June 23, 2026) at Police Station Women, Sirsa, alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506, 420, 354-A, and 34 IPC (corresponding to Sections 85, 115(2), 316(2), 351, 318(4), 75, and 3(5) of the BNS). The FIR named the petitioner and four family members: Renu Goyal, Satish Kumar Goyal, Anmol Goyal, and Divya Goyal.

While the four co-accused were granted interim anticipatory bail by the trial court on July 10 and July 18, 2026, the petitioner’s own bail application, filed on July 24, 2026, remained undecided. The complainant then approached the High Court seeking transfer of the co-accused’s bail applications, and a petition (CRM-M-48650-2026) was filed. However, no stay was granted in that transfer petition.

Trial Court’s Stalemate Over Pending Transfer

Despite notice being issued and several opportunities given, the trial court did not decide the petitioner’s bail application. When the petitioner moved an application seeking a decision, the trial court dismissed it on September 14, 2026, citing the pendency of the transfer petition before the High Court. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Section 528 BNSS.

Duty Bound to Decide Without Stay

The High Court rejected the complainant’s argument that deciding the husband’s bail would prejudice her, noting that the trial court had already granted interim relief to the co-accused. Justice Ramesh Kumari observed that in the absence of any interim stay, the trial court was “duty bound to decide the bail application.” The court strongly condemned the practice of repeatedly adjourning the matter merely to await the outcome of the transfer petition.

“In the absence of any interim stay in CRM-M-48650-2026, learned trial Court is duty bound to decide the bail application. The practice adopted by the learned trial Court for the adjournment of the bail application of the petitioner time and again, to await the order in CRM-M-48650-2026, is highly depreciated.”

Final Decision and Directions

Setting aside the impugned order dated September 14, 2026, the High Court directed the trial court to decide the petitioner’s bail application (Annexure P-9) within five working days from receipt of a certified copy of this order. The court further instructed the trial court to hear both parties, consider and discuss all documents placed on record, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

The court declined the petitioner’s other prayers, including a stay on arrest and a direction against coercive action, observing that those did not call for its indulgence since the bail application was to be decided by the trial court.

The petition was disposed of, and any pending applications also stand disposed of.