Back
Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders Inquiry into Officials for Prolonged Murder Trial
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the District and Sessions Judge, Panipat, to conduct a to identify officials responsible for keeping an eight-year-old murder trial pending, while simultaneously granting to the petitioner Neeraj—an accused who spent over eight years in custody, partly because he could not afford to furnish bail bonds despite an earlier favorable order.
A Grim Locked-In Story
The case dates back to , when two masked assailants entered a fabric-dyeing factory in Panipat, demanded money from owner Parmod Gupta, and allegedly shot him dead. Neeraj was arrested on the spot and has remained in jail ever since. A co-accused, Ravi, was granted bail in by a Coordinate Bench, which also granted to Neeraj on the same date—citing his nearly five-year incarceration, clean antecedents, and the slow pace of trial.
However, Neeraj could not walk free. Appearing before Justice Sanjay Vashisth, his counsel explained that the petitioner, being a poor man,
"could not provide the bail bonds"
even after the court’s concession. As a result, Neeraj continued to languish in jail for an additional three years.
Trial Stuck in a Vicious Cycle
When the High Court called for a status report from the District & Sessions Judge, Panipat, an alarming picture emerged: out of 27 , only 16 or 17 had been examined even after eight years. Justice Vashisth noted that the report compelled an impression that either jail authorities were not producing the accused on scheduled dates, or witnesses were "remiss in appearing."
"The trial is pending for the last about eight years, yet it could not be concluded,"
the judge observed, adding that if an accused were to ultimately earn
after such prolonged detention,
"there would not be any reasonable answer with the Courts or the other agencies."
Petitioner’s Hardship and Clean Record
Neeraj’s counsel argued that he was only 21 at the time of the incident and had no except the present case. The State opposed bail, pointing to the gravity of the murder charge and that the petitioner had allegedly exhorted the co-accused to fire the fatal shot. But the court noted that the material witnesses had already been examined, 14 out of 21 witnesses had deposed by an earlier stage, and the investigation was complete.
The judge remarked that it would be
"hard to expect much from such an accused that he may look around with a positive frame of mind towards society"
after such prolonged suffering without conviction.
Court’s Key Observations
"In a given situation, if some accused remains inside jail and lastly earns , there would not be any reasonable answer with the Courts or the other agencies."
"At the time of the incident, petitioner was 21 years of age and, since then, he has not seen light of day outside the jail."
"Given his medical condition, petitioner doesn’t appear to be a threat to society and also unlikely to flee."
"The report is detailed one and compels this Court to form an impression that either the accused were not produced before the Trial Court by the jail authorities on the dates fixed, or the witnesses were remiss in appearing and deposing before the Court."
The Order and the Inquiry
Justice Sanjay Vashisth allowed the petition and directed Neeraj’s release on , subject to furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate. The matter is listed for further hearing on .
Simultaneously, the court ordered the District and Sessions Judge, Panipat, to conduct a
to
"ascertain the officer(s)/official(s) responsible for the
"
and the reasons attributable to them. The inquiry report is to be submitted within two months. The judge clarified that this is not an isolated case, as the court
"is experiencing in number of cases, where official witnesses are remiss either in producing the accused before the Trial Court or in appearing for deposition."
The High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s growing concern over systemic delays that keep behind bars for years, often due to administrative lapses, and signals that accountability may finally be on the horizon.
