Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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

Similar News