Can a revision petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court quash a conviction based on an ambiguous dying declaration lacking medical proof of causation?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a person is arrested after a violent incident in a market lane where several shots are fired from a concealed position, resulting in the death of a shopkeeper and serious injuries to two other vendors. The investigating agency files an FIR naming three individuals as the alleged assailants, including the accused, who is a resident of a nearby village and works as a seasonal laborer. The prosecution’s case hinges primarily on a written statement recorded at a hospital from a victim who later succumbs to his injuries; the statement identifies the accused by a nickname that is shared by several locals. The trial court accepts this declaration as a dying declaration, convicts the accused under sections of the Indian Penal Code dealing with murder and attempt to murder, and imposes a term of rigorous imprisonment.

The accused files an application for bail, which is denied on the ground that the evidence is “overwhelming.” While in custody, the accused’s counsel conducts a detailed review of the trial record and discovers that the medical certificate does not establish a causal link between the injuries sustained and the victim’s eventual death; no post‑mortem report was produced, and the victim had been discharged from the hospital weeks before his demise. Moreover, the nickname used in the declaration could refer to any of three persons living in the same locality, rendering the identification ambiguous. The prosecution also relies on hospital statements of two other injured witnesses, but these statements were recorded after the witnesses were declared “unreliable” by the trial judge.

At this juncture, the legal problem crystallises: the conviction rests on a purported dying declaration that fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, because the cause of death is not proved, and the identification of the accused is uncertain. Additionally, the prior statements of the other witnesses cannot be admitted as substantive evidence under the principle that disbelieved witnesses’ statements may only be used for corroboration, not as independent proof. Consequently, the prosecution’s case does not meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold, yet the trial court’s judgment remains unchallenged on appeal because the appellate provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure do not expressly provide a direct appeal from the conviction in this circumstance.

Because the ordinary appeal route is unavailable, the accused must seek a higher‑court remedy that can address the fundamental defects in the evidentiary foundation of the conviction. The appropriate procedural vehicle is a revision petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the Punjab and Haryana High Court to examine the legality of any order passed by a subordinate criminal court when a substantial miscarriage of justice appears to have occurred. The revision petition seeks the quashing of the conviction and the order of imprisonment, on the ground that the trial court erred in admitting an inadmissible dying declaration and in relying on discredited witness statements.

To pursue this remedy, the accused engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who prepares a meticulously drafted petition. The petition outlines the factual matrix, highlights the statutory infirmities of the dying declaration, and cites precedents where the High Court has set aside convictions on similar evidentiary grounds. The counsel also argues that the trial court’s refusal to grant bail violated the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, given the lack of a solid evidentiary basis for the conviction.

The petition is filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, invoking its inherent powers under the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari under article 226, as an alternative or complementary route to the statutory revision. The petitioners argue that the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a writ is triggered by the “absence of any other effective remedy” and the “grave miscarriage of justice” resulting from the trial court’s misapplication of the law of evidence. The filing is supported by a detailed affidavit from a forensic expert who explains why the medical evidence fails to establish causation between the injuries and the victim’s death.

In response, the prosecution files a counter‑affidavit, contending that the dying declaration was recorded in the presence of a medical officer and that the victim’s death, though not proved by a post‑mortem, was a natural consequence of the gunshot wounds. The prosecution also asserts that the nickname used in the declaration is sufficient for identification, relying on the testimony of a local shopkeeper who testifies that the accused is commonly known by that moniker. However, the petition’s counsel, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, points out that the High Court’s jurisdiction extends to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and that the same principles of evidentiary admissibility apply uniformly across jurisdictions.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, after hearing arguments, examines the statutory criteria for a dying declaration. It notes that section 32 requires the declarant to be “ascertained as to the cause of death” and that the statement must relate directly to the circumstances of the transaction that caused death. The Court finds that the lack of a post‑mortem report and the intervening medical treatment create a reasonable doubt about causation. Consequently, the declaration cannot be classified as a dying declaration and must be excluded from the evidence.

Further, the Court applies the principle that prior statements of witnesses who were not believed in the trial are inadmissible as substantive evidence. Since the trial judge expressly disbelieved the two injured witnesses, their hospital statements cannot be used to bolster the prosecution’s case. The Court also scrutinises the identification issue, concluding that the nickname is ambiguous and does not satisfy the requirement of positive identification under the Indian Penal Code.

Having established that the prosecution’s case collapses without the inadmissible dying declaration and the discredited witness statements, the Punjab and Haryana High Court concludes that the conviction is unsustainable. The Court therefore grants the relief sought in the revision petition: it quashes the conviction, sets aside the order of imprisonment, and directs the immediate release of the accused from custody. The judgment also orders that the FIR be closed, and that the investigating agency be directed to refrain from any further prosecution on the same facts.

The decision underscores the critical role of the revision jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in safeguarding the rights of the accused when lower courts err in applying evidentiary law. It illustrates how a well‑crafted revision petition, supported by expert testimony and a clear articulation of statutory requirements, can rectify a miscarriage of justice even in the absence of a direct appellate route. The case also serves as a reminder to criminal practitioners, including lawyers in Chandigarh High Court and lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, to vigilantly assess the admissibility of dying declarations and the reliability of witness statements before proceeding to trial.

Question: Can the statement recorded from the injured victim, which the prosecution relies on as a dying declaration, be admitted as substantive evidence given the lack of a medical causation link and the ambiguous use of a nickname that could refer to multiple persons?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the prosecution’s case hinges on a written statement obtained at a hospital from a victim who later died. For a declaration to qualify as a dying declaration, the law requires that the declarant be aware of the cause of death and that the statement directly relate to the circumstances that caused the death. In the present case, the medical certificate does not establish that the gunshot wounds were the operative cause of the victim’s demise; the victim was discharged weeks before his death and no post‑mortem report exists. This gap creates a reasonable doubt as to causation, which is a core element of the statutory test for admissibility. Moreover, the identification of the accused rests on a nickname shared by three locals, and the trial court did not receive corroborative testimony that uniquely linked the nickname to the accused. The absence of a positive identification violates the evidentiary requirement that the accused must be unmistakably identified in a dying declaration. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that without a proven causal link and a clear, unambiguous identification, the declaration fails to meet the statutory threshold and must be excluded. The High Court, in reviewing the revision petition, is likely to apply this reasoning, finding that the declaration is inadmissible and that its exclusion destroys the prosecution’s core evidence. Consequently, the conviction, which rested on this flawed declaration, cannot stand, and the High Court is empowered to quash it. The practical implication is that the accused is no longer liable on the basis of an evidentially unsound dying declaration, and the prosecution loses its primary basis for the murder charge.

Question: Does the trial court’s refusal to grant bail, on the ground that the evidence was “overwhelming,” constitute a violation of the accused’s constitutional right to liberty when the evidentiary foundation appears tenuous?

Answer: The bail application was denied because the trial judge deemed the evidence overwhelming, yet the record reveals serious infirmities: the alleged dying declaration lacks causation proof, the identification is ambiguous, and the other witness statements were discredited. Under constitutional jurisprudence, bail may be denied only if the court is satisfied that the accused is likely to flee, tamper with evidence, or that the evidence against him is strong enough to justify continued detention. Here, the prosecution’s case collapses once the inadmissible dying declaration is excluded, and the remaining evidence fails to meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would contend that the trial court’s assessment was premature and not grounded in a thorough evidentiary analysis, thereby infringing the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21. The High Court, upon reviewing the revision petition, would examine whether the trial court applied the correct legal test for bail and whether it considered the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. If the High Court finds that the trial court erred, it can order the immediate release of the accused on bail or direct his unconditional release, given that the conviction itself is being set aside. The practical effect of correcting the bail denial is twofold: it restores the accused’s personal liberty pending final adjudication and underscores the principle that bail decisions must be anchored in a realistic appraisal of the evidential strength, not speculative judgments.

Question: In the absence of a direct appeal provision for the conviction, is filing a revision petition the correct procedural avenue to obtain relief, and what are the legal standards the High Court will apply in such a petition?

Answer: The procedural landscape shows that the ordinary appeal route is unavailable because the conviction does not fall within the categories that permit a direct appeal under the criminal procedure code. Consequently, the accused must resort to a revision petition, which empowers the High Court to examine any order of a subordinate criminal court where a substantial miscarriage of justice appears to have occurred. The revision jurisdiction is exercised when the lower court’s order is illegal, erroneous, or otherwise prejudicial to the interests of justice. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the trial court’s admission of an inadmissible dying declaration and reliance on discredited witness statements constitute such a miscarriage. The High Court, in entertaining the revision, will apply the test of whether the order is manifestly illegal or whether the lower court failed to apply the correct legal principles, particularly concerning the admissibility of evidence and the standard of proof. The court will also consider whether there is any other effective remedy; since no direct appeal exists, the revision becomes the sole avenue. If the High Court is convinced that the trial court’s judgment is unsustainable, it can quash the conviction, set aside the imprisonment order, and direct the release of the accused. This procedural route not only rectifies the specific error but also reinforces the High Court’s supervisory role in safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring that lower courts adhere to evidentiary standards.

Question: Can the statements of the two injured witnesses, recorded after the trial judge declared them “unreliable,” be used as substantive evidence to support the prosecution’s case?

Answer: The factual record indicates that the two injured witnesses gave statements at the hospital, but the trial judge expressly disbelieved them and labeled them unreliable. Legal doctrine holds that statements of a witness who is not believed in court may be admitted only for the limited purpose of corroboration or contradiction, not as independent substantive evidence. The prosecution’s reliance on these statements as the basis for establishing the accused’s participation therefore contravenes the principle that a witness’s credibility determines the evidentiary weight of their testimony. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would emphasize that the trial court’s own finding of unreliability precludes the use of these statements to prove the elements of the offence. The High Court, reviewing the revision petition, will apply this principle and likely exclude the statements from substantive consideration. The practical implication is that, once the inadmissible dying declaration is removed, the prosecution is left with no viable evidence to sustain the conviction. The High Court’s exclusion of the discredited witness statements will further erode the prosecution’s case, reinforcing the necessity to quash the conviction and order the accused’s release. This outcome also serves as a cautionary precedent for future prosecutions to ensure that only credible, admissible testimony forms the foundation of a criminal charge.

Question: Does the Punjab and Haryana High Court have the jurisdiction to quash the conviction, order the release of the accused, and direct the closure of the FIR, and what are the consequences of such a High Court order?

Answer: The High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition includes the power to examine the legality of any subordinate criminal court order where a substantial miscarriage of justice is evident. In this case, the trial court’s conviction rests on inadmissible evidence, and the procedural safeguards of fair trial have been breached. Accordingly, the High Court can quash the conviction, set aside the imprisonment order, and direct the immediate release of the accused from custody. Moreover, the court may issue a directive to the investigating agency to close the FIR, as the prosecution’s case has been dismantled and no further investigation is warranted. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that the High Court’s inherent powers under the Constitution, coupled with the specific revisionary authority, empower it to grant such comprehensive relief. The practical consequences of the High Court’s order are multifold: the accused regains his liberty, the criminal record is expunged, and the state is prevented from pursuing further prosecution on the same facts, thereby upholding the principle of double jeopardy. Additionally, the order serves as a precedent reinforcing the High Court’s role in correcting lower court errors, ensuring that convictions are based on robust, admissible evidence, and safeguarding constitutional rights against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Question: Why does the accused need to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a revision petition rather than a regular appeal, given that the conviction rests on a dying declaration that may be inadmissible?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the trial court convicted the accused on the sole basis of a statement recorded at a hospital which the prosecution treated as a dying declaration. Under the evidentiary law a dying declaration is admissible only when the cause of death is proved and the declarant is identified beyond doubt. In the present case the medical certificate does not link the victim’s injuries to his eventual death, no post‑mortem report was produced and the nickname used in the statement could refer to any of three locals. Because the trial court admitted the statement despite these defects, the conviction is tainted by a fundamental error of law. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides an appeal route for convictions, but the appellate provisions are silent when the conviction is based on a ground that is later found to be legally infirm and no specific provision allows a direct appeal from the judgment of the trial court in such a circumstance. The revision jurisdiction, however, empowers the Punjab and Haryana High Court to examine any order of a subordinate criminal court when a substantial miscarriage of justice appears to have occurred. By filing a revision petition the accused can raise the issue that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that does not satisfy the statutory requirements for a dying declaration, and that the identification of the accused is ambiguous. The High Court, exercising its supervisory power, can set aside the conviction, order release from custody and direct closure of the FIR. This route is appropriate because it bypasses the limitation of the ordinary appeal and directly addresses the legal flaw that underlies the conviction. Moreover, the revision petition can be supplemented by a writ of certiorari under article 226, thereby providing a dual avenue for relief. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is essential to draft the petition, cite precedent and argue that the trial court’s order violates the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.

Question: In what way does the absence of a post‑mortem report and the ambiguous nickname in the alleged dying declaration render a purely factual defence inadequate at the stage of revision?

Answer: A factual defence typically relies on disputing the prosecution’s narrative by presenting alternative facts, alibi or lack of motive. In the present matter the accused’s factual defence would centre on the claim that the victim’s death was not caused by the gunshot injuries and that the nickname used does not uniquely identify the accused. While these contentions are relevant, they cannot alone overturn a conviction that was rendered on the basis of evidence that the law itself deems inadmissible. The evidentiary rule governing dying declarations requires a proven causal link between the injury and death; without a post‑mortem report this link remains speculative. The trial court’s acceptance of the statement therefore violates a substantive legal requirement, and the defect cannot be cured by merely asserting factual innocence. The High Court’s revision jurisdiction is designed to correct such legal errors, not to re‑evaluate the factual matrix alone. Consequently, the accused must demonstrate that the trial court committed a jurisdictional mistake by admitting the statement, which goes beyond the scope of a factual defence. The procedural remedy therefore shifts from contesting the facts to challenging the legality of the evidentiary foundation. By filing a revision petition, the accused can ask the Punjab and Haryana High Court to scrutinise whether the trial court correctly applied the law on dying declarations and identification. The High Court can then declare the evidence inadmissible, nullify the conviction and order release. This approach also allows the accused to seek ancillary relief such as bail pending the decision, which a factual defence alone could not secure because the conviction already imposes a custodial sentence. Thus, the procedural route is indispensable to address the legal infirmity that factual arguments cannot remedy.

Question: How should the accused proceed to retain a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court and move for a writ of certiorari, and why is this parallel filing strategy viable in the present circumstances?

Answer: The accused, while still in custody, must first identify a competent lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who is experienced in criminal revision and writ practice. The counsel will prepare a detailed affidavit outlining the factual background, the defects in the dying declaration, the lack of medical proof of causation and the ambiguity of the nickname. The petition will be drafted as a writ of certiorari under article 226, asserting that the trial court’s order is ultra vires because it admits evidence that does not satisfy the legal criteria for a dying declaration. Simultaneously, the same counsel will file a revision petition under the statutory revision power of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, raising the same grounds of error. The dual filing is permissible because the High Court can entertain both a statutory revision and a constitutional writ when the petitioner demonstrates that no other effective remedy exists. The writ route emphasizes the violation of constitutional rights to liberty and fair trial, while the revision route focuses on the statutory error. By engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, the accused ensures that the petition is presented before the bench that has jurisdiction over the territorial area where the FIR was lodged and where the trial court sits. The counsel will attach the forensic expert’s affidavit, the medical certificate, and the hospital statements to substantiate the claim that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient. The petition will request quashing of the conviction, release from custody, and direction to close the FIR. The parallel strategy enhances the chances of relief because the High Court may entertain either or both remedies, and it underscores the seriousness of the miscarriage of justice, compelling the court to act promptly. This procedural posture is essential because a factual defence alone cannot overturn a judgment that rests on an evidentiary flaw.

Question: In what manner does the inherent power of the Punjab and Haryana High Court under article 226 complement the statutory revision, and what specific reliefs beyond quashing the conviction can be sought through this combined approach?

Answer: The inherent jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court under article 226 allows it to issue a writ of certiorari when a subordinate court’s order is illegal, arbitrary or violative of constitutional rights. This power operates alongside the statutory revision provision, which is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or law. In the present case the revision petition highlights the statutory error of admitting an inadmissible dying declaration, while the writ of certiorari stresses that the conviction infringes the accused’s right to liberty and the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt guaranteed by the Constitution. By invoking both avenues, the accused’s counsel can ask the High Court to not only set aside the conviction but also to grant immediate bail, direct the release of the accused from custody, and order the investigating agency to cease further prosecution on the same facts. Additionally, the petition can seek a direction for the police to expunge the FIR from their register, to provide compensation for unlawful detention, and to issue a formal declaration that the evidence was improperly admitted, thereby preventing its future use in any related proceedings. The combined approach also enables the court to issue a mandamus directing the trial court to record the reasons for its decision, ensuring transparency. The High Court may further order that the forensic expert’s report be placed on record, thereby establishing a factual basis for the dismissal. By leveraging both the revision and the writ, the accused maximises the scope of relief, addressing both the legal defect and the constitutional violation, and ensures that the miscarriage of justice is fully remedied. Engaging lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court is therefore crucial to navigate the procedural intricacies and to present a comprehensive case that secures the accused’s release and safeguards his future rights.

Question: How should the defence evaluate the admissibility of the alleged dying declaration in light of the medical evidence, and what specific evidentiary defects can be highlighted to argue for its exclusion?

Answer: The defence must begin by mapping the factual matrix of the declaration: it was recorded at a hospital after the victim had been discharged and weeks before his death, and the medical certificate does not establish a causal link between the gunshot injuries and the eventual demise. Under the dying‑declaration provision of the Indian Evidence Act, a statement is admissible only when the declarant is proved to have died as a direct result of the injury described, and when the statement pertains to the circumstances of that injury. The absence of a post‑mortem report, the intervening medical treatment, and the fact that the victim survived for an extended period create a substantial doubt about causation. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would therefore focus on the lack of forensic corroboration, requesting the court to order an independent medical opinion on whether the recorded injuries could have been the operative cause of death. Moreover, the defence can argue that the declaration was not made in the presence of a neutral medical officer, which is a procedural safeguard to ensure voluntariness. The investigating agency’s failure to preserve the original medical records or to produce a contemporaneous death certificate further weakens the prosecution’s case. By highlighting these gaps, the defence can move a motion to strike the declaration as inadmissible, emphasizing that its inclusion would contravene the statutory requirement of certainty about cause of death. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would also point out that the trial court’s reliance on this unverified statement violates the principle that evidence must be both relevant and reliable, and that the High Court has the power to quash any order founded on inadmissible material. The practical implication is that without the dying declaration, the prosecution’s case collapses, opening the door for the accused to seek immediate release from custody.

Question: In what ways does the ambiguity of the nickname used in the declaration affect the identification of the accused, and how can the defence challenge the prosecution’s reliance on ancillary testimony to resolve this ambiguity?

Answer: The nickname recorded in the declaration is shared by three individuals residing in the same locality, rendering it insufficient for positive identification. The defence should scrutinise the prosecution’s attempt to link the nickname to the accused through the testimony of a local shopkeeper, who asserts that the accused is “commonly known” by that moniker. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would argue that such secondary identification is speculative and fails the identification requirement under the Indian Penal Code, which demands that the accused be distinctly identified beyond reasonable doubt. The defence can request the court to examine any contemporaneous police reports, eyewitness statements, or CCTV footage that might corroborate the shopkeeper’s claim; the absence of such material would underscore the unreliability of the identification. Additionally, the defence can highlight that the investigating agency’s FIR merely lists the nickname without any corroborating description, and that no forensic evidence ties the accused to the crime scene. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would further contend that the prosecution’s reliance on the shopkeeper’s testimony amounts to a “post‑hoc” identification, which is impermissible when the primary evidence (the dying declaration) is already excluded. The practical implication is that without a clear, unambiguous identification, the prosecution cannot satisfy the burden of proof, and the High Court may be compelled to quash the conviction on the ground of misidentification, thereby securing the accused’s release and preventing a miscarriage of justice.

Question: How can the defence address the admissibility of prior hospital statements of witnesses who were declared “unreliable” by the trial judge, and what procedural arguments can be raised to exclude these statements?

Answer: The defence must focus on the principle that statements of a witness who has been expressly disbelieved by the trial court cannot be admitted as substantive evidence; they may only serve to corroborate or contradict the witness’s in‑court testimony. In this case, the two injured witnesses provided hospital statements after the trial judge had already ruled them unreliable. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would move to strike these statements on the ground that their admission contravenes the evidentiary rule governing prior inconsistent statements. The defence should request the High Court to examine the trial record for the specific reasons the judge found the witnesses unreliable—whether due to inconsistencies, bias, or lack of corroboration—and argue that the subsequent admission of their statements undermines the fairness of the trial. Moreover, the defence can highlight that the investigating agency failed to secure these statements before the trial, violating the procedural requirement that prior statements be recorded under oath and in the presence of a magistrate when the witness’s credibility is in question. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would further argue that the prosecution’s reliance on these statements amounts to a procedural defect that vitiates the conviction, as the evidentiary foundation becomes tainted by inadmissible material. The practical consequence is that, if the High Court agrees to exclude these statements, the prosecution’s case is left with only the discredited dying declaration and ambiguous identification, both of which have already been challenged, thereby strengthening the defence’s position for quashing the conviction.

Question: What are the strategic considerations in choosing between filing a revision petition under the Code of Criminal Procedure and invoking the writ jurisdiction under article 226, and how should the defence structure the relief sought?

Answer: The defence must weigh the procedural advantages of each route. A revision petition under the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the High Court to examine the legality of the subordinate court’s order when a substantial miscarriage of justice is evident, focusing on procedural irregularities and evidentiary defects. Conversely, a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution provides a broader remedial scope, enabling the court to intervene when “no other effective remedy” exists, and to address violations of fundamental rights such as liberty and due process. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would recommend filing both simultaneously, with the revision petition emphasizing the specific procedural errors—admission of an inadmissible dying declaration, misidentification, and improper reliance on discredited witness statements—while the writ petition underscores the violation of the accused’s right to liberty under article 21, given the lack of substantive evidence. The defence should structure the relief to include quashing of the conviction, setting aside the imprisonment order, immediate release from custody, and a directive to the investigating agency to close the FIR. Additionally, the petition should seek an order that the prosecution bear the costs of the proceedings, reflecting the principle that an unjust conviction imposes an undue burden on the accused. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would ensure that the petition is meticulously drafted, attaching the forensic expert affidavit, the medical certificates, and the trial record excerpts that demonstrate the evidentiary flaws. By pursuing both avenues, the defence maximises the chances of obtaining relief, as the revision petition addresses the specific legal errors, while the writ petition provides a constitutional safeguard that can compel the court to act swiftly, especially concerning the accused’s continued detention.

Question: How can the defence mitigate the risk of continued custody while the High Court proceedings are pending, and what arguments support a bail application under the prevailing circumstances?

Answer: The defence should foreground the lack of substantive evidence and the procedural defects already identified to argue that the accused does not pose a flight risk or a threat to public order. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would prepare a bail application emphasizing that the primary evidence—the dying declaration—has been shown to be inadmissible, the identification is ambiguous, and the ancillary witness statements have been excluded, leaving the prosecution with no material capable of sustaining a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The application should also highlight the accused’s personal circumstances: a seasonal laborer with strong family ties in the village, no prior criminal record, and a history of cooperation with the investigating agency. Moreover, the defence can request that the bail be conditioned on the accused surrendering his passport, reporting regularly to the police station, and refraining from contacting any witnesses, thereby addressing any residual concerns of interference with the investigation. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would further argue that continued detention infringes upon the accused’s constitutional right to liberty, especially when the High Court is likely to quash the conviction based on the evidentiary deficiencies. The practical implication of securing bail is twofold: it alleviates the personal hardship endured by the accused and underscores the presumption of innocence, thereby reinforcing the narrative that the prosecution’s case is untenable. If bail is granted, the defence can focus its resources on the substantive High Court petition without the distraction of managing custodial challenges, ultimately enhancing the prospects of a favorable outcome.