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

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