TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case, Citing Lack of Eyewitnesses and Pandemic-Related Absence

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted regular bail to Nand Kishore Sahni, the petitioner, who was facing charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision, rendered by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN on October 16, 2023, has garnered attention for its observations on the lack of eyewitnesses and the petitioner's absence due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The case, registered as FIR No. 0112 on April 15, 2019, stemmed from a complaint filed by Munna Singh, the brother of the deceased Muntun Singh. Munna Singh alleged that the petitioner and others had assaulted his brother, leading to his tragic demise. However, the complainant's statement was primarily based on hearsay, and there were no eyewitnesses to the incident.

The petitioner had been in custody since January 16, 2023, and the material witness, Munna Singh, had already been examined during the proceedings. The petitioner's absence from the trial was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a balanced decision, Justice Pankaj Jain commented, "Without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned."

This judgment highlights the importance of a fair legal process and the consideration of unique circumstances, such as the pandemic, in determining bail applications. It serves as a reminder that the absence of eyewitnesses and hearsay evidence must be carefully evaluated in such cases.

Nand Kishore Sahni's counsel, Mr. Arun Chander Sharma, welcomed the decision, while the State of Haryana, represented by Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, did not dispute the factual assertions made by the petitioner's counsel. Shri Viney Sharma, Advocate, acted as counsel for the accused persons.

This ruling sets a precedent for cases where the absence of eyewitnesses and pandemic-related circumstances play a crucial role in the bail application process, emphasizing the need for a fair and just legal system.

Date of Decision: October 16, 2023

NAND KISHORE SAHNI  vs STATE OF HARYANA

Latest Legal News