Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Non-Lethal Weapons No Ground for Bail: P&H HC High Denies Bail in Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant Bail Order, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana denied the bail application of Sudesh Singh, involved in a serious criminal case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi dismissed the bail plea in the case CRM-M-57528-2023.

The case, registered under FIR No. 103 dated May 3, 2022, at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar, Punjab, includes charges under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 148, 149 (related to unlawful assembly), and others. The petitioner, Sudesh Singh, argued false implication and absence from the scene of the crime.

In his decision, Justice Sethi emphasized, "The individual role of the accused is not required to be considered when they are alleged to have been part of the unlawful assembly." This reference to a Supreme Court judgment, 'Kumer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan,' underscored a pivotal legal point about the role of non-lethal weapons in such cases.

The court observed that merely being armed with non-lethal weapons does not justify bail, especially in cases involving charges as serious as Section 302 IPC. This statement sheds light on the court's stringent approach towards cases involving collective criminal actions.

The State, opposing the bail, cited the gravity of the allegations and the collective intention of the unlawful assembly. The evidence, including statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was thoroughly examined before reaching the decision. The court found the petitioner's claim of false implication unsubstantiated and highlighted the severity of the alleged crimes, including the use of sharp-edged weapons leading to serious injuries and a fatality.

This judgment sets a precedent, reinforcing the legal principle that participation in an unlawful assembly with serious allegations overshadows the non-lethal nature of weapons possessed by the individuals. The decision signals a tough stance by the judiciary on crimes involving collective criminal intent, especially in cases of serious offenses like murder.

Date of Decision: 21.11.2023

SUDESH SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB

Similar News