Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute Mere Presence or Relationship Is Not Enough—Prosecution Must Prove Participation and Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court Evidence of Injured Eye-Witnesses Must Be of Sterling Quality — Not of a Doubtful and Tainted Nature: Bombay High Court Acquits Five Life Convicts in Murder Case Refund of Provisional Pilferage Amount Is Lawful If Theft Not Proved: Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected by Conducting Mini-Trial on Disputed Facts: Delhi High Court Section 17 PWDV Act | Senior Citizen’s Peace Trumps Daughter-in-Law’s Residence Right Where Alternative Accommodation Provided: Delhi High Court Access Must Meet Agricultural Necessities, Not Mere Pedestrian Use: Karnataka High Court Modifies Easement Width from 3 to 6 Feet Section 302 IPC | Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Septic Tank Murder Case Domestic Violence Allegations Can’t Always Be Painted as Attempt to Murder: Meghalaya High Court Invokes Section 482 CrPC to Quash Matrimonial Assault Case Post-Settlement Landlord Is Best Judge Of His Need; Son’s Residence In Delhi No Ground To Deny Eviction For Hotel Project: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Eviction Tribunal Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Grant-In-Aid Related Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Writ Appeal in Lecturer Promotion Case Educational Institutions Have No Lien Over Students' Future: Rajasthan High Court Slams Withholding of Certificates for Fee Recovery Mere Allegation of Forged Revenue Entries Not Enough to Disturb Settled Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea for Injunction Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court

Bail is the Rule and Jail the Exception, Emphasizes the Need for Fair Trial and Liberty – High Court Grants Bail in Economic Offenses Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh granted regular bail to Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Bansal, in connection with multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Justice Pankaj Jain emphasized the judiciary’s fundamental stance that “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” underlining the importance of liberty and a fair trial amidst the severity of the offenses charged.

The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar, sought regular bail similar to that previously granted to co-accused Padam Bansal, who faced analogous allegations. The offenses included breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and evasion of GST. The counsel for the petitioner argued the applicability of prior judicial precedents favoring bail post-investigation unless specific conditions contraindicate it.

The FIR No. 355, dated October 28, 2020, registered at the Police Station Civil Line Sirsa, District Sirsa, brought charges under multiple sections of the IPC and the CGST Act against the petitioner. It was argued that similar to cases involving other co-accused who had been granted bail, the ongoing judicial custody of Mahesh Kumar, without commencement of the trial, violated principles of liberty and a fair trial, especially post-completion of the investigation.

The Court extensively discussed the principles laid out in previous apex court judgments concerning bail in economic offenses. It was noted that while economic offenses are grave, the presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. The court cited the tripod test from the apex court’s decisions, which considers: whether the accused is a flight risk, the likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the potential influence over witnesses.

Justice Jain pointed out that the investigation had concluded and chargesheets were filed, which typically tilts judicial discretion towards granting bail unless compelling reasons exist otherwise. The court was careful to state that the bail was granted without prejudice to the merits of the case, maintaining judicial impartiality.

The court ordered the release of Mahesh Kumar on bail, subject to him furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Additional conditions included the surrender of his passport and a mandate that he should not alter any documents or contact details pertinent to the ongoing investigation.

Date of Decision: May 2, 2024

Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Bansal vs State of Haryana

Latest Legal News