Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

High Court Grants Bail to Accused After 2 Years in Custody: Material Witnesses Turn Hostile

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has granted regular bail to the petitioner, Vikas alias Vikki, who had been in custody for the last 2 years, 8 months, and 3 days. The decision was reached on 20th July 2023 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary. The bail petition (CRM-M-44370-2022) was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 747 dated 5th November 2020, registered under Sections 114, 216, 302, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Sections 30 and 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Barwala, District Hisar.

The judgment cited in the case was "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382," where the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the duty of the court to examine the role of the accused in the charged offense and other relevant circumstances.

One of the key arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, Mr. J.S. Thind, was that the recovery made from the petitioner was of a different firearm than the one alleged to have caused the fatal injury. Additionally, he pointed out that eight co-accused had already been granted regular bail by both the High Court and the trial Court.

The prosecution's case faced a setback as crucial material witnesses, including the complainant and three eye-witnesses, did not support the allegations. Out of a total of 25 prosecution witnesses, 21 are yet to be examined, indicating that the trial is likely to take considerable time.

In light of these factors, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary found that the petitioner's further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Thus, he allowed the petition for grant of regular bail, with certain conditions to be adhered to by the petitioner. These conditions include not tampering with evidence, not pressurizing or intimidating witnesses, mandatory appearance before the trial Court, and not committing similar offenses.

While pronouncing the judgment, the Hon'ble Judge clarified that the observations made in this proceeding are limited and do not indicate any opinion on the merits of the case. The trial will proceed independently, and in case of any breach of the conditions, the State will have the liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

The decision has brought relief to the petitioner after a prolonged period of custody, highlighting the significance of witness cooperation and the examination of relevant circumstances in bail matters.

Date of Decision: 20.07.2023

Vikas @ Vikki   vs State of Haryana     

Latest Legal News