NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Bail In UAPA Case: No Reasonable Grounds to Believe Accusations Are Prima Facie True: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling today, granted regular bail to Nirmal Singh alias Nimma, setting aside the previous order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. The appellant was denied bail under various stringent laws, including the Arms Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Explosive Substances Act.

The bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Kirti Singh, critically examined the material on record. The court observed a notable absence of prima facie material linking Singh to the alleged offenses. In a pivotal statement, the bench declared, "There are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true."

This observation formed the crux of the court's decision, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence against Singh. The appellant, who had been in custody for over a year, was primarily implicated based on a co-accused's statement, which the court found insufficient without corroborating evidence, such as recovery or call detail records.

In their detailed analysis, the Justices also took into account the stringent provisions of the UAPA Act, under which bail is generally challenging to secure. The court's decision to grant bail, despite these provisions, highlights their careful scrutiny of the accusations and evidence presented.

Date of Decision: November 30, 2023

Nirmal Singh alias Nimma  VS State of Punjab

Latest Legal News