MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

High Court Grants Regular Bail to Petitioner in attempt to murder After 6 Months in Custody

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary, granted regular bail to petitioner Ritesh, who had been in custody for more than six months. The decision was made in response to a petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail in connection with FIR No.914 dated 22.11.2022, registered at Police Station Panipat City, District Panipat.

The counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, argued that Ritesh had not been named in the original FIR and was implicated only in the supplementary statement of the complainant, which emerged after 3½ months. Moreover, co-accused Vishal and Robin were granted regular bail by the same court after spending 4 months and 18 days and more than 6 months in custody, respectively.

Justice Aman Chaudhary, while considering the circumstances of the case, noted that the petitioner was not involved in any other case, and none of the 15 witnesses had been examined yet. The trial was expected to be lengthy, making further incarceration of the petitioner unnecessary. In light of these factors, the court found merit in granting the petitioner regular bail.

In the words of Justice Aman Chaudhary, "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for more than 6 months; not involved in any other case; co-accused have been enlarged on bail; none out of 15 witnesses have yet been examined; the trial is likely to take considerable time and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, thus the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed."

The court imposed several conditions upon Ritesh's release, including not tampering with evidence, not pressurizing or intimidating prosecution witnesses, mandatory appearance before the trial Court, and not committing similar offenses. The petitioner was also directed to furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court and seek prior permission before leaving the country.

Date of Decision: 20.07.2023

Ritesh vs State of Haryana

Latest Legal News