Sudarshan v. State of Punjab
Case brief
What is this about?
Bail; prolonged custody; trial likely to take time; serious offence; enlargement of accused not warranted on custody alone; relies on Supreme Court observations in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004 AIR(SC) 1866); Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra ((2007) 1 SCC 242); State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi (2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC)).
What did the court decide?
Mere prolonged period of custody, or the fact that the trial is likely to take time, by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration, is not a sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail when the offence alleged is serious. ¶25
���
��������������� ���
����������������������������������������� ����������
���������������
�������� !�"�#$%$ &'��()�*)����
�+����+���
,)���$�$ &�-
.�-%/%
+�������������� ))))��%0 &"�&�
�����'����1�2���+)���+����������������������2
���������� ����������������������������������������������
������������������������������ ��
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail, the main ground urged being his prolonged custody, in a case where the offence alleged is serious.¶25
The court heldMere prolonged period of custody, or the fact that the trial is likely to take time, by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration, is not a sufficient ground for enlarging an accused on bail when the offence alleged is serious.ratio¶25
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Punjab & Haryana HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRM-M/5273/2026
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court