Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Alleging Willful Disobedience of Anticipatory Bail Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed by Vinod Hastir against Balkar Singh and others, alleging willful disobedience of an order granting anticipatory bail. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan on 19th July 2023.

The petitioner, Vinod Hastir, had sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.16 dated 23.01.2019 under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar. Subsequently, during the investigation, the police added charges under Sections 465, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, alleging the production of forged documents by the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the arrest and subsequent bail were in violation of a previous judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the respondents contended that proper procedure had been followed and the arrest was necessary for completing the investigation.

In the judgment, Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan observed, “Considering the fact that the petitioner himself has initially filed CRM-12226-2020 and CRM-18802-2020 in CRM-M-9545-2019 for grant of bail, which were dismissed as withdrawn on 25.01.2021, and even subsequently, the petitioner filed second petition i.e. CRM-M-5437-2021 for granted for anticipatory bail and the same was rendered as infructuous on 05.02.2021, in view of the statement that the petitioner stands arrested on 30.01.2021 and was granted the concession of bail vide order dated 04.02.2021, this Court finds no willful disobedience of the order.”

The Court further emphasized that the respondents did not intentionally or willfully disobey the court order and the arrest was made to facilitate the effective investigation.

Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that there was no willful disobedience of the court order, and the contempt petition was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 19th July 2023

Vinod Hastir    vs Balkar Singh and others   

Latest Legal News