UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bail is the Rule, and Jail is an Exception: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Abetment to Suicide Case of Husband

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, granted regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No.152, registered under Sections 306, 506, 34 of the IPC, at P.S. Model Town Hoshiarpur. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, while delivering the judgment, reiterated the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, stating, “Bail is the rule, and jail is an exception.”

The bail petitions involved allegations of abetment to suicide and criminal intimidation. The pivotal legal consideration was the application of the principle ‘bail as the rule and jail as the exception,’ under the ambit of the right to speedy trial and presumption of innocence.

The petitioners, Komal @ Kajal and Shubham @ Mahesh, faced accusations in the suicide of the deceased, Deepak Kumar. Allegations suggested that Komal, the deceased’s wife, had extramarital relations with Shubham, contributing to Deepak’s suicide. The petitioners contested these claims, emphasizing their lack of direct involvement and the extended period of pre-trial detention.

Justice Tiwari meticulously analyzed the principles of criminal jurisprudence, particularly focusing on the presumption of innocence and the objective of bail. The court noted the duration of the petitioners’ custody and the probable delay in trial proceedings. It concluded that continued detention would not be purposeful. The judge clarified that these observations were exclusively for the bail application and should not prejudice the trial.

The High Court allowed the bail petitions, subject to the petitioners furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the judicial authority. The court emphasized that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail application and should not influence the trial’s merits.

Date of Decision: February 14, 2024

SHUBHAM @ MAHESH  VS STATE OF PUNJAB

Latest Legal News