Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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