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-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