Case Summary: Muhammad Jamil v. State of Haryana (2025) | Bail under BNSS

The legal principle of bail plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance between individual liberty and societal interest. The recent judgment in Muhammad Jamil v. State of Haryana (2025) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court raises important questions about the right to bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. Justice Anoop Chitkara’s ruling in this case reflects a thoughtful examination of the complexities involved in granting bail to a foreign national accused of cyber fraud. This case highlights the tension between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring timely justice for the victim.

The case presents a significant legal challenge at the intersection of procedural law and constitutional rights. The court’s decision to grant bail underscores the importance of considering the accused’s right to liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This article explores the background of the case, the legal arguments presented, the court’s reasoning, and the broader implications for bail jurisprudence under the BNSS.

Title of the Case: Muhammad Jamil v. State of Haryana

Citation: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:PHHC:038828

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided on: 21.03.2025

Background of the Case

The case of Muhammad Jamil v. State of Haryana originated from an FIR registered on July 31, 2024, at the Cyber West Police Station in Gurugram under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of the BNSS, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Mr Satya Prakash Kothari filed the complaint, claiming he was induced into investing in the stock market through fraudulent WhatsApp messages.

Facts of the Case

1. On June 7, 2024, Mr. Satya Prakash Kothari received WhatsApp messages from two mobile numbers, persuading him to invest in the stock market.
2. Following the instructions, the complainant transferred ₹2.81 crores from two of his HDFC Bank accounts.
3. When he attempted to withdraw the amount, his request was denied, revealing that he had become a victim of cyber fraud.
4. During the investigation, it was discovered that the SIM cards used for the fraudulent activity were obtained fraudulently by one R. Surya, who sold them to a Malaysian national, Divakaran.
5. Divakaran, in turn, sold the SIM cards to Muhammad Jamil (the petitioner) and another Malaysian national, Kadar Gani Bin Naina Mohammad.
6. A Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued against Muhammad Jamil and Kadar Gani Bin Naina Mohammad.
7. Muhammad Jamil was detained at Trichy International Airport, Tamil Nadu, on December 18, 2024, and was arrested the following day.

Legal Proceedings and Arguments

Petition for Bail

Muhammad Jamil filed a petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Abbas B., supported by Ms. Bhumika Khatri and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, argued that:

• Muhammad Jamil had no prior criminal record.
• The investigation was complete, and further incarceration was unnecessary.
• Prolonged pre-trial detention would violate the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The petitioner was willing to surrender his passport and comply with any other conditions imposed by the court.

State's Objections

The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, opposed the bail petition, arguing that:

• Prima facie evidence linked Muhammad Jamil to the crime.
• The accused posed a flight risk due to his foreign nationality.
• The financial loss suffered by the complainant was substantial.
• Granting bail at this stage could hinder the trial process.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

Justice Anoop Chitkara granted bail to Muhammad Jamil, providing detailed reasoning based on the following factors:

1. First-Time Offender and Lack of Criminal Record

The court acknowledged that Muhammad Jamil was a first-time offender with no previous criminal history. The absence of any criminal antecedents weighed in favour of granting bail.

2. Completion of Investigation

The court noted that the investigation had been completed, and the charge sheet had already been filed. Since the trial was yet to commence, there was no justification for further pre-trial detention.

3. Right to Speedy Trial

The court underscored the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prolonged pre-trial detention, in the absence of compelling reasons, amounts to a denial of justice. The court referred to the landmark judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), which held that unnecessary incarceration violates the accused’s fundamental rights.

4. Conditional Bail

Justice Chitkara imposed the following stringent conditions for granting bail:

• Surrender of passport and personal identification details.
• Prohibition against contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence.
• Requirement is to appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates.
• The state’s right to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner committed any further offences.

5. International Perspective

The court also took into account the international dimension of the case. Prolonged detention of foreign nationals without trial could lead to diplomatic issues and potential violations of international human rights norms under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Broader Legal Implications

1. Bail Provisions Under BNSS

The BNSS, which came into effect in 2023, replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the court to grant bail based on the nature of the offence, the accused’s criminal history, and the necessity of continued detention. Justice Chitkara’s decision reflects a balanced application of these principles.

2. Right to Speedy Trial

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prolonged detention without trial constitutes a direct violation of this right. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court emphasized that a speedy trial is a constitutional mandate.

3. Protection of Victims' Interests

While protecting the accused’s rights, the court also acknowledged the financial harm suffered by the complainant. However, the court held that the completion of the investigation and the absence of any evidence of tampering justified the grant of bail.

4. Challenges Faced by Foreign Nationals

Foreign nationals accused of crimes in India face additional challenges, including language barriers, lack of access to legal resources, and difficulties in securing bail. The court’s decision highlights the need for special procedural safeguards for foreign nationals to ensure a fair trial.

Judicial Precedents and Comparative Analysis

The court's reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) reflects an attempt to uphold the principle that arrest should be the last resort. In that case, the Supreme Court held that unnecessary arrest violates the constitutional rights of the accused and should be avoided unless necessary.

Similarly, in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2025), the Supreme Court directed lower courts to exercise caution while granting bail to foreign nationals and to notify the Foreign Registration Officer to prevent misuse of the legal process.

Conclusion

The case of Muhammad Jamil v. State of Haryana illustrates the fine balance between protecting individual liberty and ensuring justice for victims. Justice Chitkara’s decision to grant bail under Section 483 of the BNSS reflects a progressive interpretation of the right to bail and the right to a speedy trial. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the broader demands of justice.

While the granting of bail provides temporary relief to the accused, the larger issue of judicial delay remains unresolved. The case serves as a reminder that timely adjudication is not just a matter of legal efficiency but a fundamental requirement for upholding the rule of law.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment