Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

High Court Grants Bail in Multi-Crore Heist Case, Warns Against Irreversible Injustice from Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration

09 November 2024 12:31 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Anoop Chitkara, granted bail to Monu Dabas and Sonu Dabas, two of the accused in a significant multi-crore heist case, citing the principle of parity with similarly placed co-accused. The court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial incarceration could lead to irreversible injustice and recognized the petitioners' right to bail after more than a year in custody.

The case originates from an FIR filed on August 21, 2021, at the Kherki Daula Police Station in Gurugram, Haryana. The FIR was lodged after a substantial sum of money, approximately ₹50 lakhs, was reported stolen from the office of Alpha G Corp. Management Services Private Limited. Initial investigations led to the arrest of multiple suspects, including employees and external associates, who were allegedly involved in the theft and subsequent laundering of the stolen money.

Over time, the scope of the investigation expanded significantly, revealing a large-scale conspiracy involving a network of criminals, including known gangsters, police officials, and businessmen. The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners, Monu Dabas and Sonu Dabas, were implicated in the case after the main accused, Vikas Lagarpuria, named them in his disclosure statement.

The primary argument for granting bail to the petitioners was based on the principle of parity. The court noted that several co-accused in the case, who were similarly situated in terms of allegations and evidence, had already been granted bail. Justice Chitkara observed, "Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petitioners make a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage."

The court acknowledged the significant period the petitioners had already spent in custody—over a year and three months—and recognized that further pre-trial incarceration could lead to irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their families. The court, however, made it clear that this decision was made without prejudice to the trial's outcome, which would consider the merits of the case.

The court imposed several stringent conditions for granting bail, emphasizing the need to balance the accused's liberty with the protection of victims and witnesses. The conditions included restrictions on the petitioners' movements, prohibition from entering the victim’s property or workplace, and the surrender of any firearms. The court underscored that these conditions were necessary to ensure that the petitioners do not influence the witnesses or repeat the offense.

Justice Chitkara’s judgment reflected a careful balance between the rights of the accused and the need for a fair trial. The court referenced several precedents to justify the imposition of stringent bail conditions, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vikram Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which support protective measures for victims and witnesses during ongoing trials.

The court also referred to the necessity of bail conditions having a nexus to the purpose they serve, as articulated in Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, ensuring that the conditions imposed were both proportional and reasonable in light of the circumstances.

The High Court's decision to grant bail to Monu Dabas and Sonu Dabas reflects the judiciary’s nuanced approach to balancing the rights of the accused with the imperative of a fair trial. The ruling underscores the principle that prolonged pre-trial incarceration should not be punitive, particularly when co-accused in similar circumstances have been granted bail. This decision is likely to influence ongoing and future bail petitions in cases involving lengthy pre-trial detentions, particularly in complex, multi-accused scenarios.

Date of Decision: 30 August 2024
 

Similar News