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 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