Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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

Latest Legal News