Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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