Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

“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