Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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