Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

High Court Grants Regular Bail to Petitioner in 7-Year-Old Murder Case: Merits and Parity Cited as Grounds

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh granted regular bail to the petitioner, Bedharak, in connection with a seven-year-old murder case. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan, emphasized merits and parity with co-accused as crucial grounds for the bail grant.

Bedharak had filed a second petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking regular bail in relation to FIR No. 312 dated 27th July 2016, registered at Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar, Haryana. The FIR included sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 506, 325, 180, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Earlier, the petitioner’s bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 5th April 2022. However, seeking parity with co-accused Satbir, who was granted regular bail in a similar case, the petitioner approached the court again.

The court considered the fact that Bedharak had been in custody for three years and 13 days, and only four out of 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. Furthermore, it was noted that the FIR and witness statements did not attribute any specific injury to the petitioner. These factors led to the court’s decision to grant bail to Bedharak.

In the judgment, Justice Jhingan stated, “Without commenting on the merits of the case, on the basis of parity of the petitioner vis-a-vis co-accused so far as the grant of bail is concerned and though the investigation is complete, conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioner is granted bail.”

The court also imposed specific conditions for the bail, requiring the petitioner to furnish bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. Additionally, Bedharak is obligated to appear before the trial court on every scheduled date and refrain from trying to influence any of the prosecution witnesses or entering the village where the complainant and witnesses reside.

 Date of Decision:   21st July, 2023

 

Bedharak vs State of Haryana

 

Latest Legal News