Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

High Court Grants Bail with Conditions in Violent Assault Case: Justice Pankaj Jain Emphasizes Completion of Investigation and Incarceration Duration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Manoj, in a case involving multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. The decision, pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain, came under the spotlight for its nuanced consideration of the petitioner’s incarceration period and the completion of the investigation.

Justice Pankaj Jain’s bench meticulously reviewed the case, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), against the backdrop of allegations of a violent brawl resulting in injuries and theft. The FIR, lodged at Police Station Tigaon, District Faridabad, detailed an assault involving weapons, pointing towards a severe criminal incident.

In his observation, Justice Jain noted, “Without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the incarceration suffered by the petitioner and the allegations leveled against him, the present petition is allowed.” This statement, underlining the court’s balanced approach, has become a focal point in legal discussions, highlighting the delicate balance between the right to bail and the seriousness of allegations.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Pardeep Panwar, effectively argued that despite the petitioner being portrayed as the instigator, he did not participate in the alleged incident. This argument was bolstered by referring to previous bail grants to co-accused in similar circumstances.

The State and the complainant’s counsel, represented by Mr. A.K. Sehrawat and Ms. Ruby Kaur respectively, opposed the bail, emphasizing the severity of the petitioner’s alleged role in the incident. However, the court, after considering all aspects, including the petitioner’s time in custody since April 3, 2023, and the conclusion of the investigation, deemed it fit to grant bail.

Date of Decision: November 16, 2023

MANOJ VS STATE OF HARYANA

Similar News