Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Bail in Murder Case - No Useful Purpose Would Be Served To Keep the Petitioner in Further Preventive Custody : P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a decision that could set a precedent for bail applications, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Abhishek, who has been in custody since October 2021. The petitioner was accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. The Hon'ble Justice Arun Monga, delivering the decision on October 3, 2023, stated that "no useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody."

The bail application initially faced rejection by the Trial Court. Mr. Ankur Lal, the advocate for the petitioner, argued that Abhishek had been falsely implicated in the case. He cited key witness testimonies and highlighted that the CCTV footage did not conclusively prove the petitioner's presence at the scene of the crime.

On the other hand, the state, represented by Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana, opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's criminal history and the risk of him fleeing from the trial proceedings.

Justice Monga observed, "Conclusion of trial is likely to take quite some time as it is proceeding at a snail's pace. Whereas, the petitioner has already been languishing in jail for more than one year and 11 months." The Court further noted that most of the material witnesses had already been examined, and no concrete evidence was presented that the petitioner would tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

The Court concluded that considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of the case, the bail application had to be granted. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to certain conditions.

The judgment clarified that the decision should not influence the ongoing trial, and if the petitioner is found involved in any other offenses while on bail, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

The decision serves as a pivotal example, emphasizing the importance of individual liberty and the need for concrete evidence when making custodial decisions.

Date of Decision: 03.10.2023

Abhishek vs State of Haryana     

Latest Legal News