Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

"Punjab-Haryana High Court Grants Bail , Cites Lack of Evidence and Lengthy Detention"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Punjab-Haryana High Court has granted bail to Sandeep @ Tinda in a case that has attracted widespread attention. The judgment, delivered by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA on October 12, 2023, marks a crucial turning point in the ongoing legal battle.

The case, bearing FIR No. 595 dated 06.10.2022, involved serious charges under Sections 216, 302, 323, 452, 506, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Sandeep @ Tinda had been in custody since January 7, 2023, following the denial of bail by the trial court.

The judgment, which has been widely welcomed, cited several critical factors in its decision. Justice Arun Monga observed, "The petitioner's continued preventive custody is based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. There is no probability of tampering with evidence as it has already been seized by the investigating agency." This observation highlights the court's emphasis on the need for concrete evidence when deciding on bail applications.

Furthermore, the judgment took into account Sandeep @ Tinda's personal circumstances, noting that he is a 36-year-old married individual with two minor children, and is the sole breadwinner of his family. This, along with the lengthy period of preventive custody, weighed in favor of granting bail.

The decision also noted that the co-accused in the case had already been granted bail by the same court, further highlighting the need for parity in such matters.

The verdict has been seen as a significant reaffirmation of the principle that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. It underscores the importance of personal liberty and the necessity of evidence when deciding on the liberty of an individual.

While the judgment made clear that its observations were solely for the purpose of the bail hearing and would not affect the merits of the case, it has set an important precedent in matters related to bail and preventive custody.

Sandeep @ Tinda's legal representation, led by Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, welcomed the decision, highlighting the importance of fairness in the judicial process. The State was represented by Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana, who had opposed the bail application on the grounds of the seriousness of the offense.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the pivotal role that the judiciary plays in upholding individual rights and ensuring justice is served, even in cases with serious charges.

Date of Decision: October 12, 2023

Sandeep @ Tinda  vs State of Haryana

Latest Legal News