No Arbitration Agreement, No Arbitrator: Supreme Court Voids Award Made Without Municipal Council's Consent, Calls Entire Proceedings "Coram Non Judice" Post-Disposal Miscellaneous Applications Maintainable Only In Rare Situations; Court Becomes Functus Officio After SLP Dismissal: Supreme Court Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Nipped In The Bud; 7-Year Delay In FIR Fatal: Supreme Court State Can Withdraw Electricity Duty Exemption For Captive Power Plants In Public Interest But Must Give One-Year Notice Period: Supreme Court DSC Personnel Entitled To Second Pension; Shortfall In Service Up To 12 Months Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court Person Professing Christianity Cannot Claim Scheduled Caste Status To Invoke SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Except Matters One May, But Exclude Justice One Cannot: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award, Holds State Cannot Be Judge In Its Own Cause On Disputed Breach When State Requisitions Your Vehicle For Elections And It Kills Someone, The State Pays — Not Your Insurer: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Financial Burden Cannot Defeat Constitutional Right to Just Compensation: Supreme Court Unsigned Charge Is A Curable Irregularity, Won't Vitiate Trial Unless 'Failure Of Justice' Is Shown: Supreme Court Tenant Files Fresh Petition Before Rent Authority After Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Review And Misc Application — Court Calls It "Gross Abuse of Process", Voids Restoration Order Taxation Law | Exemption For Naphtha Depends On 'Intended Use' At Procurement, Not Actual Exclusive Use: Supreme Court Army's Own Grading System Worked Against Women Officers For Years — Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission, Pension To Short Service Women Officers

Prima Facie Case Against Accused Paramount in Anticipatory Bail Decisions: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana delivered a significant judgment today in the case of Sunita vs. State of Punjab (CRM-M-22248-2023), underscoring the importance of the prima facie case against an accused while considering applications for anticipatory bail.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, presiding over the matter, rejected the anticipatory bail application of Sunita, who was implicated in an FIR alleging fraud and cheating in connection with a failed matrimonial alliance. The FIR, lodged at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, accused Sunita and others of deceitfully obtaining large sums of money under the guise of arranging a marriage with promises of settling abroad.

In his decision, Justice Bedi emphasized, “The first and foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused.” This observation comes as a pivotal legal standpoint in the backdrop of anticipatory bail jurisprudence.

Sunita’s counsel argued that she was falsely implicated, stating that the financial transactions were strictly between the complainant’s family and the prospective groom. In contrast, the State and complainant’s counsel pointed to a confessional statement from Sunita’s co-accused husband, alongside recovery of gifts, arguing that these substantiated the charges against her.

The Court, while acknowledging these submissions, concluded that the prima facie evidence against Sunita was substantial. Justice Bedi further noted that the grant of regular bail to the co-accused husband did not automatically entitle Sunita to anticipatory bail. “Merely because Dilwar Ram has been granted the concession of regular is not a ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the offence stands prima facie established,” he added.

Date of Decision: 29th November 2023

SUNITA VS STATE OF PUNJAB

 

Latest Legal News