Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

"Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail, Citing Prolonged Custody and Completed Investigation in IPC and Arms Act Case"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to Dilraj Singh, also known as Raja, in a case involving charges under Sections 307/120-B/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner had filed for regular bail after having been previously held in custody. The court, presided over by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN, made the decision on August 28, 2023.

The court noted the petitioner's argument that his alleged motive was implausible due to his separation from the concerned party, whose marriage had been dissolved by mutual consent. Moreover, the petitioner claimed he was out of the country at the time of the alleged incident, casting doubt on his involvement.

Counsel for the petitioner stressed the significant duration of the petitioner's incarceration and highlighted the completion of the investigation, which had led to the presentation of the challan. The counsel emphasized the petitioner's lack of a criminal history and the lack of substantial evidence against him.

In its decision, the court granted bail to the petitioner, acknowledging the extended period of his custody and the completed investigation. The bail was granted subject to the petitioner furnishing bail/surety bonds that met the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The court explicitly clarified that the decision to grant bail did not indicate any opinion on the case's merits.

Date of Decision: 28.08.2023

DILRAJ SINGH ALIAS RAJA vs STATE OF PUNJAB   

Latest Legal News