HC cites Article 21, grants regular bail to constable Amandeep Kaur

Holding that continued detention would violate the Punjab police constable Amandeep Kaur’s fundamental right to personal liberty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail after noticing that she had already spent nearly six months in custody while charges were yet to be framed. She is facing allegations of possessing disproportionate assets.

Justice Aman Chaudhary allowed the petition after observing that the challan had been filed on November 14 but “charges have not been framed and there are total 46 prosecution witnesses”, making it evident that the trial would take considerable time.

Justice Chaudhary quoted a Referring to a Supreme Court’s ruling as saying it was the Court’s duty “to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.”

Referring to the custody certificate placed on record, Justice Chaudhary noted that “the petitioner is behind bars for 5 months and 19 days.”

The Bench also took note of her senior counsel Anmol Rattan Sidhu’s contentions that she was accused of possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs 48 lakh over a seven-year period (2018–2025), but the figure did not account for friendly loans from relatives and alimony. “The petitioner was also already on bail in another case under the NDPS Act,” it was added.

The State, on the other hand, opposed bail on the ground that there were “specific allegations” and claimed she possessed disproportionate assets “to the extent of 44.34 per cent”. But the counsel was unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage and petitioner being on bail in other cases.

Taking the factors together, the court observed that “further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of her right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” The petition was accordingly allowed.

Ordering her release on regular bail, the court directed that she furnish bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/Duty Magistrate, and imposed standard conditions, including that she shall not tamper with evidence, not intimidate witnesses, appear before the trial court on every date unless exempted, not commit a similar offence, not coerce any person acquainted with the facts, not misuse her liberty, furnish her address and mobile number by way of affidavit and not change them without intimation, and not leave the country without permission.

The Bench made it clear that “in case there is any breach of the conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail”, and that the observations were confined solely to the adjudication of the bail plea, without touching the merits.