Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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