Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Grants Regular Bail in Multi-Case Theft of Oil Operation; "Further Incarceration Not Required," Says Hon'ble Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, granted regular bail to the petitioner, Pawan, in a case involving theft of oil and other related offenses. The judgment was delivered on 14July 2023

The petitioner, represented by Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate, and Mr. Saurav Dogra, Advocate, had sought bail in connection with FIR No.94 dated 25.03.2021, which implicated him under various sections, including the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, Explosive Substances Act, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, in the court's ruling, observed that the petitioner had not been named in the original FIR but was later implicated based on disclosure statements made by other arrested accused individuals. The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 23.08.2022, and none of the 30 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

The court emphasized the need for fair trial procedures and held, "At this stage, the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2022, investigation stands completed, and none of the 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, his further incarceration in the present case is not required."

The ruling further highlighted that the petitioner had been granted bail in two similar cases earlier. The court ordered the release of the petitioner, subject to furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Additionally, the petitioner is required to appear on the first Monday of every month before the police station concerned until the conclusion of the trial and submit an affidavit each time confirming that he is not involved in any other case or crime beyond those mentioned in the order.

Furthermore, the court directed the petitioner to prepare an FDR (Fixed Deposit Receipt) of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit it with the Trial Court, which may be forfeited if the petitioner fails to appear for trial without sufficient cause.

Date of Decision: 14.07.2023

Pawan  vs State of Haryana   

Latest Legal News