Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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