Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Anticipatory Bail Granted to Former Deputy C.M. Sukhbir Badal Unprovoked Firing Conspiracy Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a case involving an alleged conspiracy related to unprovoked firing upon peaceful protesters.

The judgment, pronounced on September 29, 2023, addresses a series of petitions (CRM-M-14308, 14326, 14915, 14921, 14926, and 16991 of 2023) with similar facts and a common prayer. It marks a crucial turning point in a case where the petitioners had previously faced dismissal of their bail applications.

The case had its roots in a religious congregation held in 2007, which sparked controversy. The FIR filed in the aftermath of the incident led to subsequent developments, including sacrilege incidents and growing resentment among Sikh communities.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) conducting the investigation implicated several individuals, including the petitioners. The judgment outlined the specific actions attributed to each accused, based on the SIT’s findings.

Justice Chitkara’s judgment highlighted the pivotal factors leading to the grant of anticipatory bail. He emphasized the lack of a need for custodial interrogation, the magnitude of the crime, and the quality of evidence collected.

“In the present case, the magnitude of the crime was undoubtedly massive; still, the evidence collected against the petitioners is based on presumptions that the petitioners were involved in the conspiracy, and the evidence prima facie lacks evidence qua motive,” the judgment noted.

Furthermore, the judgment made it clear that the petitioners would not influence or tamper with witnesses or the investigation. It outlined conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail, which were to be strictly followed.

The judgment cited legal precedents, including cases such as Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Sidharth v. State of UP, and Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, in support of its decision.

This judgment stands as a significant development in the ongoing legal proceedings, allowing the petitioners relief in the form of anticipatory bail while awaiting further trial.

DATE OF DECISION: September 29, 2023

Sukhbir Singh Badal   Vs State of Punjab

Latest Legal News