Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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