Cruelty is key factor in bail decisions: Punjab and Haryana HC

Cruelty is a relevant and independent ground for denying bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled. Justice Anoop Chitkara made it clear that an accused found to have acted with cruelty ordinarily should not be granted bail unless the court recorded specific reasons for doing so.

“A cruel person is more likely to create a lot of insecurity in society,” asserted Justice Chitkara, while dismissing the bail plea of a man accused of a sword attack in a brutal attempted murder case. “Once the courts form a prima facie opinion that the accused acted with cruelty, such an accused ordinarily should not be granted bail, and if the courts deem it appropriate to grant, then it must be after specifying the reasons for such an indulgence,” the court asserted.

Justice Chitkara added: “Cruelty implies there is something inhuman and barbarous — something more than the mere extinguishment of life. The offence is heinous, and the crime brutal.”

The ruling came in a case registered on June 21, 2023, at Division No. 4 police station in Ludhiana under Sections 307, 148, 149, and 506 of the IPC, along with the provisions of the Arms Act. Section 326 IPC was added later.

As per the State’s case, the petitioner and his co-accused had formed an unlawful assembly and launched a murderous assault on the complainant’s brother. The petitioner was allegedly armed with a sword, which he used to inflict grievous and dangerous injuries on the victim’s vital organs. The weapon was subsequently recovered.

Justice Chitkara observed: “The petitioner and the main co-accused left no stone unturned to kill the victim. The injuries attributed to the petitioner are on the vital parts of the body. It was a stroke of luck that the victim survived — maybe because of medical intervention. The act is full of extreme perversity and hatred and on this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.”

Rejecting the argument of prolonged custody, the Bench noted: “The petitioner’s custody of two years cannot be termed prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence, which is 10 years.”

The court added that the bail petition and accompanying documents pointed prima facie to the petitioner’s involvement. “The impact of crime would not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so,” the Bench stated.