Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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