Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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

Latest Legal News