Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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