Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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