Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

High Court Grants Bail to Maninder Singh in Assault Case: Bail is the Rule, Jail an Exception

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a significant decision today, granted bail to Maninder Singh @ Beendhinda, the petitioner in the case numbered CRM-M-63559-2023. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, presiding over the case, underscored the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence by stating, "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception", drawing from the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay".

Maninder Singh had sought regular bail in an FIR registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 307, 323, 324, 506, 148, and 149, at the P.S. City Barnala, District Barnala. The allegations involved Singh and other co-accused in an assault incident.

Justice Tiwari, in his ruling, highlighted the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reflecting on the legal principles governing bail, the court cited "Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India", (2018) 11 SCC 1, to emphasize the judicial discretion in bail matters.

Singh, who has already faced incarceration for 10 months and 3 days, was granted bail considering the nature of the allegations against him and the fact that other co-accused, accused of inflicting more serious injuries, had been granted bail in related cases.

The court's decision to grant bail was also influenced by the need to strike a balance between the individual’s right to liberty and the societal interest, as noted in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra.

However, Justice Tiwari cautioned that if Singh is found indulging in similar offences in the future, the State has the liberty to apply for the cancellation of the bail granted. This ruling, while specific to this case, sets a precedent in the application of bail laws, highlighting the judiciary's commitment to upholding individual rights while ensuring societal safety.

Date of Decision: January 08, 2024

MANINDER SINGH @ BEENDHINDA  VS STATE OF PUNJAB

 

Similar News