Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"Punjab-Haryana High Court Upholds the Principle 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' in Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab-Haryana High Court today granted regular bail to Lovepreet Singh @ Love, in a case involving allegations of robbery and arms possession. The decision, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, emphatically reinforced the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence, stating "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception".

Lovepreet Singh had been in custody since May 24, 2022, following allegations of snatching gold ornaments at gunpoint, as per FIR No. 49 dated April 29, 2022. The case, registered under Sections 379-B(2), 34, and 201 of the IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural, had seen little progress, with charges being framed as late as August 8, 2023, and none of the 17 prosecution witnesses having been examined to date.

In his ruling, Justice Tiwari cited the landmark judgment "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay" (1977), which established the principle that detention should only be used to ensure an accused's availability for trial. The court observed that if an accused's presence can be secured otherwise, then continued detention is not mandatory.

The court's decision was also influenced by the fact that co-accused in the case had already been granted bail. This, coupled with the prolonged detention of Lovepreet Singh and the stalled trial process, formed the basis for granting bail.

In his concluding remarks, Justice Tiwari stated, "The grant of bail in this case is consistent with the sanctity of individual liberty and the presumption of innocence, which are cornerstones of our legal system." He further clarified that this decision should not be seen as a comment on the merits of the case but rather as a necessary step in ensuring justice and fair trial rights.

The decision has been received positively by legal experts, who view it as a reaffirmation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, particularly in relation to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Lovepreet Singh is expected to be released on bail upon furnishing the required bail and surety bonds, as directed by the court. The case will continue to be tried on its merits, with the court's observations in the bail decision having no bearing on the outcome of the trial.

Date of Decision: 22nd December 2023 

Lovepreet Singh @ Love Vs  State Of Punjab

 

Latest Legal News