MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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