Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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