Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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

  • by Admin
    28 January 2026 8:57 AM
Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:54 AM
Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings