Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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