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

Multiple Cases Not A Ground for Bail Denial: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Extortion and Snatching Case”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court today granted regular bail to Jagsir Singh, also known as Jagga, in a case involving allegations of snatching, extortion, and possession of illegal arms. Justice Pankaj Jain presided over the case numbered CRM-M-56958-2023, emphasizing the court’s stance that “involvement in several more cases cannot be a ground to deny bail.”

Jagsir Singh was arrested in connection with FIR No. 101 dated August 21, 2023, which was filed at the Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga. The FIR included charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, such as Sections 379-B, 420, 383, 411, 120-B, and the Arms Act Sections 25 and 27.

The court’s decision to grant bail was heavily influenced by the principle of parity, as a co-accused in the case, Sikander Singh alias Sikanderi, had previously been granted bail under similar circumstances. The judgment referenced the case ‘Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another’, 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831, and ‘Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of UP (SC)’, (2012) 2 SCC 382, underscoring the notion that an individual’s involvement in multiple cases should not automatically lead to bail denial.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the accusations against Jagsir Singh were dubious, as the victims had delayed their statements for over a month. Moreover, with the investigation concluded and the challan presented, the petitioner’s continued custody was contested.

The State opposed the bail plea, citing the petitioner’s history of involvement in other criminal cases, including three cases under Section 384 IPC and one under Section 307 IPC. However, the court found this argument insufficient to withhold bail.

Justice Pankaj Jain, while granting bail, stipulated that Jagsir Singh must fulfill the bail and surety bond conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate concerned. The judge also made it clear that the observations made in the ruling should not be seen as a comment on the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: 20th November 2023

JAGSIR SINGH @ JAGGA VS STATE OF PUNJAB

Latest Legal News