Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Long period of incarceration is a good ground to grant bail – Pb & Hry HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Punjab and Haryana High Court observed in a bail application in the case of Union of India versus K.A. Najeeb (supra), the Supreme Court has held that long custody would be an essential factor while granting bail under the UAPA. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides right to speedy trial and long period of incarceration would be a good ground to grant bail to an under-trial for an offence punishable under the UAPA.

Facts - Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused Dharminder Singh @ Fauji - petitioner had posted on her Facebook about 'Sikhs for Justice 2020 Referendum' - no allegation taken part in any unlawful activity under sections  – argued -Sikhs for Justice Organisation'  banned in July, 2019 while posted on Facebook on 31.05.2018 – state opposed bail - contends - petitioner actively indulged in unlawful activities -  part of a group which was carrying out activities related to referendum-2020 - Circulated the video recording of the incident after the wine shop set on fire - recovery of six mobile phones and five pen drives  and audio recording conversation with co-accused wherein Petitioner was stating a newspaper get registered and carry out assassinations.

Punjab and Haryana High Court further observed in bail application that the allegations against the petitioner are that she had posted about 'referendum-2020' on her facebook account and there is stated to be an audio recording of  the petitioner  being in conversation with co-accused.  Its authenticity and evidentiary value would be determined at the trial. There is no reference to any act of violence (overt) which was committed by any of the accused in the instant case or that any individual had been harmed in the instant case. 

Court Held - authenticity and evidentiary of audio recording determined at the trial – No act of violence committed – No one harmed - petitioner is a lady with three minor children- nine months old child lodged with her in jail - petitioner in custody for over two years and three months -Challan has been filed but there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded soon – Bail Allowed.

D.D: 21.12.2021

Deep Kaur @ Kulvir Kaur  Versus State of Punjab       

Latest Legal News