Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Health Condition and Technological Adaptations: Court Grants Bail to Elderly Cancer Patient

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court of Punjab and Haryana permits anticipatory bail for 75-year-old with advanced carcinoma, utilizing video conferencing for investigation.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, has granted anticipatory bail to a 75-year-old woman suffering from advanced carcinoma. The judgment, rendered by Justice Anoop Chitkara, underscores the judicial system’s adaptability in accommodating the health conditions of accused individuals and leveraging technology for legal processes. The court permitted the petitioner, Dr. Veena Parmar, to join the investigation through video conferencing from the USA, setting a notable precedent for similar cases in the future.

Dr. Veena Parmar, a retired pediatrician with an MD in pediatrics, is facing charges under Sections 409, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case revolves around allegations of wrongful and malicious decisions concerning government land, implicating her in a conspiracy with other accused, including a retired Assistant District Collector, Kuldeep Singh. The FIR, registered on August 9, 2023, accuses Dr. Parmar and others of conspiring to declare ownership of shamlat land in favor of private individuals.

Health Condition and Bail Application:

The court recognized the critical health condition of Dr. Parmar, suffering from advanced myeloid leukemia, and her inability to travel from the USA to India. The court highlighted, “Custodial interrogation is unnecessary in this case, given the documentary nature of the evidence and the absence of allegations of the petitioner’s personal interaction with the co-accused.”

Digital Surety Bonds and Video Conferencing:

Justice Anoop Chitkara’s judgment set a significant precedent by allowing the petitioner to furnish bail bonds digitally. The court stated, “The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has remarkably transformed identification techniques, making it feasible to minimize reliance on traditional surety requirements.” This decision reflects a modern approach to judicial procedures, accommodating the health and logistical challenges faced by accused individuals.

The court extensively cited Supreme Court judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the balance between personal freedom and the necessity of investigation. “The basic rule is ‘bail, not jail,’ except in circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice,” the court noted, referencing the principles established in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and other landmark cases.

Justice Chitkara remarked, “The petitioner’s medical condition and the primarily documentary nature of the evidence render custodial interrogation unnecessary. The use of video conferencing and digital surety bonds ensures that the investigation proceeds without compromising the petitioner’s health and fundamental rights.”

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to Dr. Veena Parmar highlights the judiciary’s responsiveness to the health needs of the accused and the potential for technological integration in legal processes. This ruling is expected to influence future cases, promoting a more humane and adaptable approach to justice, particularly for vulnerable individuals with severe health conditions.

Case Title: Veena Parmar vs. State of Punjab

Date of Decision: May 30, 2024

Case No.: CRM-M-13898-2024

Similar News