Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Punjab and Haryana High Court denies anticipatory bail to accused in a case of extortion and blackmail

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has dismissed a petition filed by Subhash Singh seeking anticipatory bail in a case filed against him by the State of Haryana. The case was registered under Sections 384, 506, 511, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Police Station Sector-09 Ambala City, District Ambala. Singh had been named in a disclosure statement of his co-accused, who had been accused of attempting to extort money from the complainant.

The complainant had alleged that he was staying in a rented house in Ambala City along with his friends when an unknown girl came inside, stating that she had come to take the house on rent. She provided her mobile phone number to him, and later accused him of refusing to marry her because she belonged to the scheduled caste community. Singh and his co-accused were accused of attempting to extort money from the complainant and defaming him.

During the investigation, Singh had joined the investigation but had refused to hand over his mobile phone, claiming that it had been lost. The prosecution had argued that the allegations against Singh were grave and that he was a blackmailer and extortionist.

The Hon'ble Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, while dismissing the petition, held that Singh did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, as he had not cooperated with the Investigating Agency and the allegations against him were serious. The judge also observed that the first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused, and custodial interrogation alone cannot be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. The judge also clarified that the observations in the order were only for the purposes of deciding the bail application, and the Trial Court was free to adjudicate upon the matter in accordance with the law.

 21 April, 2023

Subhash Singh vs State Of Haryana 

Latest Legal News