Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

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