Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Retaliatory FIR, Citing Dubious Conduct of Complainant

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on October 20, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a bail application, granted bail to the petitioner who had been languishing in custody. The judgment shed light on the alleged retaliatory nature of the FIR and raised questions about the complainant's conduct.

The judgment noted, "There appears to be an orchestrated attempt on the part of the complainant in collusion with certain officials, be it out of vengeance or otherwise, to keep filing one FIR after another to somehow keep the petitioner in custody."

The petitioner had been arrested in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 327, 323, 294, 506, 120-B, 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with the later addition of Section 201 IPC. The allegations against the petitioner included a conspiracy and torture by police officials.

The court observed that the petitioner's continued preventive custody was based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. However, it pointed out, "There is no probability of tampering with evidence as it has already been seized by the investigating agency."

The judgment further highlighted that the petitioner had been in detention for over three months and that his co-accused had already been granted interim anticipatory bail.

The court concluded, "No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further preventive custody," and ordered his release on bail.

This ruling not only provides relief to the petitioner but also raises questions about the filing of retaliatory FIRs and the need for a thorough investigation into such cases.

Date of decision: October 20, 2023

Ashish Kapoor VS State of Punjab   

Latest Legal News