Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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