Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

“Further Incarceration Not Required”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail to Accused in Alleged Anti-National Activities Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant order , the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Sumit Kumar, who was accused of anti-national activities and possession of weapons. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi presided over the case and laid out the judgement.

The petitioner, Sumit Kumar, was accused under various sections of the IPC, Arms Act, and Explosive Substances Act. He was in custody since July 28, 2022, and was seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).

The Court observed, “The veracity of the prosecution case against the petitioner shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial.” The judgement further noted that “Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 28.07.2022 and none of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.” Justice Bedi concluded that “the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required,” which set the tone for the final decision.

While the defense argued that there was no concrete evidence against Sumit Kumar, the State contended that he was part of a larger gang involved in anti-national activities. Nonetheless, the Court granted regular bail to the petitioner subject to terms and conditions. One of these conditions requires Kumar to appear before the police station on the first Monday of every month until the trial concludes.

The Court also imposed financial conditions, instructing Kumar to prepare an FDR of Rs. 1,00,000, to be deposited with the Trial Court. The petitioner was further instructed to deposit his passport with the Trial Court immediately if he had not already done so.

The judgement has not referred to any previous cases, and it explicitly states that the granting of bail does not comment on the merits of the case. The petition stands disposed of, with the petitioner granted bail under the specified conditions.

No other cases were referred to in the judgement, and the petition has been disposed of with the grant of bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions.

Date of Decision: September 01, 2023

Sumit Kumar vs State of Punjab

Latest Legal News