NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay 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 Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail in Land Fraud Case, Citing ‘Serious Threat to Economy’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of land fraud and forgery. The judgment, pronounced on December 4, 2023, emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses and their impact on the nation’s financial well-being.

The court, headed by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA, carefully examined the petitioner’s plea for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 113 of 2022, which included charges under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7, 8 & 13(1)(B) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act).

The petitioner, apprehending arrest, had sought anticipatory bail while pointing to the existence of pending civil suits related to the disputed property. However, the court was not persuaded by these arguments.

The key legal point highlighted in the judgment was the court’s stance on the seriousness of economic offenses. The court cited the Supreme Court’s precedent, stating, “Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to an abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance.”

The court further emphasized that “economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving a huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offenses affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing a serious threat to the financial health of the country.”

Regarding the specific case, the court found that the evidence pointed to the petitioner’s involvement in fraudulent activities, including the alleged fraudulent registration and tempering of documents related to the property in question.

In its final decision, the court held that the petitioner had failed to make a case for anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition. The interim orders were also vacated.

Date of Decision: 04.12.2023

Vinod  VS State of Haryana

Latest Legal News