NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court “Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank

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