Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High 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