Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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