Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation

"Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Individual Liberty: Grants Pre-arrest Bail in Dowry Case"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of individual liberty in the judicial process, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, under the bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, granted pre-arrest bail to Reeta Jha, a school principal embroiled in a dowry-related complaint. This decision, delivered on February 26, 2024, highlights the court's discretion in granting pre-arrest bail, even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

Reeta Jha, the petitioner, had approached the court seeking pre-arrest/transit bail in complaint case No. 1038(C) of 2023, involving offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961. She alleged false implication by her daughter-in-law.

In his judgment, Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated, "The jurisdiction of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail will be available. Hence, the present application is allowed and order dated 29.12.2023 is made absolute." This observation came after considering the addition of Section 328 IPC, a graver offence, to the petitioner's charges.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1484), asserting that High Courts have the jurisdiction to grant interim protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in FIRs registered outside their territorial jurisdiction. Justice Kainthla emphasized the constitutional imperative of protecting a citizen's right to life, personal liberty, and dignity.

The decision delved into various precedents and judgments from different High Courts, underlining the principle that pre-arrest bail can be granted even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants, subject to the specific circumstances of each case. The court maintained that this discretion is pivotal in safeguarding individual liberty while ensuring justice is served.

 

 

Justice Kainthla's ruling reiterated the importance of judicial discretion and the need to balance individual rights with the demands of justice, stating, "The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case."

This judgment is seen as a significant affirmation of the High Court's role in protecting individual liberties in the face of legal challenges and complexities.

Date of Decision : 26-02-2024

REETA JHA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER

 

Similar News