District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High 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