Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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