Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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