Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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                                             

Similar News