Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Punjab-Haryana High Court Grants Bail  "Merely Because Allegations Are Serious, Bail Cannot Be Denied"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab-Haryana High Court has set aside the order of the Special Judge, Amritsar, and granted regular bail to Gursewak Singh, who has been in custody since July 5, 2020. The bench, comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri, Acting Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra, delivered their decision on November 9, 2023, making a pivotal statement, "Merely because allegations are serious, bail cannot be denied."

Gursewak Singh had appealed against the dismissal of his regular bail application in a case involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Arms Act, and Prisons Act. The court highlighted concerns regarding the prosecution under the UAP Act due to the absence of pre-requisite sanction from the competent authority at the time of the presentation of the challan.

The Court observed that there was a lack of specific evidence attributing any role to Singh in the commission of the offences for which he had been booked. "No specific and active role is shown to have been attributed to the present appellant qua commission of offences punishable under the provisions of IPC and Arms Act," the bench noted.

In their judgment, the bench underscored the lengthy duration of Singh's custody and the slow pace of the trial as key considerations for granting bail. They remarked, "Considering the appellant's lengthy custody (about three and a half years) and the slow pace of the trial, the court allowed the appeal."

Advocates Mr. Rajiv Malhotra represented the appellant, while Mr. Alankar Narula, AAG, Punjab, appeared for the respondent.

The decision has been welcomed by legal experts as a reinforcement of the principle that the seriousness of allegations alone cannot be a ground for denial of bail, emphasizing the importance of individual liberty and the right to a fair trial. The Court also clarified that their observations were solely for the purpose of granting bail and should not influence the merits of the ongoing trial.

Date of Decision: 09.11.2023

Gursewak Singh VS State of Punjab                                             

Latest Legal News