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

P&h hc bail granted to pankaj kumar alias meenu malhotra in bribery case with stringent conditions in economic offense case: upholds balance between liberty and fair trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, has granted bail to the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar alias Meenu Malhotra, who was facing charges related to economic offenses. The court, while ensuring a balance between individual liberty and the necessity of a fair trial, imposed stringent conditions to address concerns such as influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and intimidating witnesses. The decision was rendered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara on 3rd July 2023.

The petitioner had filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking release from custody in connection with an FIR registered on 22nd September 2022, at Vigilance Bureau Range Jalandhar, Bathinda, District Jalandhar. The FIR accused the petitioner of receiving a bribe through conduits for compromising a tender for food procurement and transportation. The charges invoked various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, and Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Bindra, Advocate, sought bail, highlighting the irreparable harm that prolonged pre-trial incarceration could cause to the petitioner and his family. They expressed willingness to comply with any stringent conditions imposed by the court.

The State opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the economic offenses and the need to prevent the accused from influencing the ongoing investigation, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses.

After considering the arguments and the completion of material investigation, Justice Anoop Chitkara, referring to relevant Supreme Court judgments, held that the accused was entitled to bail on stringent conditions. The court cited the cases of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, among others, to underscore the importance of balancing the liberty of the accused with the requirements of a fair trial.

In a pragmatic approach, the court suggested that the accused should be given the choice to furnish either surety bonds or alternative options such as fixed deposits, direct electronic money transfer, or creating a lien over their bank account. The court emphasized that this choice should lie with the accused, providing flexibility and options based on individual circumstances.

The court further ordered the petitioner to comply with various conditions, including submitting detailed information about bank accounts, assets, and financial holdings within fifteen days of release. Failure to comply with these conditions could result in the cancellation of bail. The court also highlighted that the petitioner could apply for modifications of bail conditions if they violated fundamental rights or caused difficulties in specific situations.

To ensure authenticity and ease of procedure, the court allowed advocates for the petitioner to download and attest a true copy of the bail order from the official court website. This copy could be used for furnishing bonds, with the attesting officer having the option to verify its authenticity.

The court clarified that its observations in the bail order were not expressions of opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial court should not consider them during the trial proceedings. It further emphasized that the decision did not restrict or limit the rights of the police or the investigating agency to continue their investigation as per the law.

Date of Decision:3rd July 2023                                            

Pankaj Kumar @ Meenu Malhotra VS State of Punjab

Latest Legal News