Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad 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

 

Similar News