Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Rajesh Shankar J., held that the petitioner was in judicial custody for more than a year; hence he is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

The petitioner was accused under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The counsel for the petitioner, Om Prakash Singh submitted that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 25-07-2019 and the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail primarily due to the reason that he is in judicial custody since 18-01-2019 and only 03 charge-sheet witnesses out of 11 have been examined in the trial. The victim of the case has already been examined in the trial as PW-1. Hence they prayed for regular bail on ground of length of judicial custody

The counsel for State, Ranjit Kumar opposed the prayer.

The Court held that the victim of the case has already been examined in the trial and that the petitioner was in judicial custody for more than a year, hence he is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 20,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed in the trial till conclusion of the same.

In view of the above, the bail was granted. [Jaglal Bhuiyan v. State of Jharkhand, 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 216, decided on 28-02-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara, J. granted regular bail to the petitioner who is facing charges levelled against him under Sections 323, 324, 325, 341, 201 & 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The present petitioner is represented by counsel Sanjeev Bhushan and Narinder Sharma. While counsel Narender Guleria, Bhupinder Thakur represented the respondents.

The victim Sativan Yadla was the Manager of the hotel where the accused was working. A few days before the date of occurrence, i.e., 28-11-2019, the victim had terminated the services of the accused. On this, the accused was annoyed and assaulted him, which led to the registration of FIR dated 28-11-2019.

Due to the young age of the accused, i.e., 22 years of age and it being his first offence, the Court deemed fit to grant bail on grounds such as the investigation is almost at the final stages of completion, the petitioner/accused is in judicial custody since 29-11-2019, has no criminal history and is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the memo of the parties.

The Court further asked petitioner/accused to furnish a bail bond in the sum of Rs 10,000 with 2 sureties and other details as regards to his identity deeming other conditions as accepted for ascertaining his identity and securing his presence, as and when demanded by the authorities concerned for an efficient investigation and a fair trial.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and bail granted. [Parteek v. State of H.P., 2020 SCC OnLine HP 245, decided on 24-02-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court:  Fateh Deep Singh, J. allowed the application of bail on the ground that petitioner was behind the bar and that culpability will be determined during the trial which was not going to be concluded in near future.

A petition for regular bail was made for the offence under Sections 342, 354B, 376, 511/34, 450 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The facts of the case were that the accused petitioner and his sons forcibly took the complainant into a room, tore off her clothes, abused her, tried to violate her and gave her beatings against which the FIR was made the very next day of the incident.

G.C. Shahpuri, counsel for the petitioner argued that bare perusal of the FIR would show that no allegation of actual rape has come about and being a pure case of matrimonial dispute, in which the petitioner has no role to play except that he happens to have intervened into the matrimonial dispute, he has been falsely implicated. Thus, prayed for the anticipatory bail.

Baljinder S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, stoutly opposed the grant of relief on the grounds that if allowed bail the petitioner might stifle the trial.

The High Court opined that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in the custody as petitioner was already behind the bars for more than seven months and culpability shall be determined at the end of the trial which was not likely to conclude in the near future.  It was also instructed that anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Thus, ordered the release of petitioner on regular bail. [Dalip Bera v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 669, decided on 28-05-2019]