Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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