Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Denial of Bail Must be Exception in Economic Offences: High Court Grants Bail in PACL Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today granted regular bail to Damanjot Singh, the petitioner involved in the PACL Limited forgery case. The judgement was pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, who underscored the principle that “denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule” in cases of economic offences, echoing his views in the landmark Maninder Sharma case.

The case, registered under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 384, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B, revolves around allegations of criminal conspiracy and forgery in the affairs of PACL Limited. The petitioner was accused of facilitating a fictitious meeting and fraudulently appointing directors to the company.

Justice Bedi, in his decision, highlighted the considerations for bail in economic offences, especially when the trial is likely to be prolonged and the accused has been in custody without examination of any of the 46 prosecution witnesses. The court also took into account that the allegations against Singh were primarily based on his relationship with his in-laws, who are central figures in the case.

Represented by Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, along with Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara and Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocate, the petitioner’s plea for bail was contested by Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab, and Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate, representing the complainant.

In a detailed judgement, Justice Bedi also discussed the jurisdictional aspects and the role of the Serious Fraud Investigating Office (SFIO) in the context of alleged violations of the Companies Act, 2013.

The court imposed specific conditions for bail, including monthly appearances before the police station concerned and an affidavit submission stating non-involvement in any other case/crime. Additionally, the petitioner is required to deposit a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of Rs. 5,00,000 as a security measure.

Date of Decision: 30 November  2023

Damanjot Singh  VS The State of Punjab

Latest Legal News