Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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

Similar News