Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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