#haryanahighcourt Archives

2 Nov

Supreme Court’s Firm Stance: Prioritizing Justice and Compliance in Bail Proceedings

Prime Legal

Blog #haryanahighcourt, #law, #LegalPost, #punjabhighcourt, bail

Title: Gulab Singh vs State Of Haryana & Another

Citation: CRM-M-52639-2023

Corum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Decided on: 17.10.2023

Introduction:

This case appears to involve allegations of assault and threats made against Azad Singh’s father by a group of individuals including Sandeep Singh and the application for anticipatory bail for some of the co-accused is being discussed in the Co-ordinate bench. In this case Supreme Court made several key observations and issued a directions based on the circumstances.

Facts:

In this case, the FIR has been filed based on a statement given by Azad Singh, a resident of Ballu. Azad Singh and his elder uncle, Sh. Arjun Singh, were going to their fields in a buggy, following Azad’s father on a motorcycle for grass cutting. While they were near their field, a motor cycle and a car stopped in front of their fields and a group of individuals, including Sandeep Singh, Methab Singh, Lakha Singh and Gurlal Singh arrived at a scene. These individuals were armed with swords and sticks. The group of individuals began beating Azad Singh’s father. Azad Singh states that they had filed court cases against Sandeep Singh previously, resulting in a sentence for him. Sandeep Singh had been pressuring them to compromise on these cases.

Azad Singh alleges that the group of individuals including Sandeep Singh and people had wrongfully injured his father and seeks legal action against them. Regarding the anticipatory bail applications, it is mentioned that the second anticipatory bail applications of co-accused, Sukha Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, have been entertained by the Co-ordinate Bench, and interim protection has been granted in their cases on specific dates.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The case involves the petitioner filing an application for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s stance that the previous anticipatory might have been withdrawn instead of being considered onits merits. The principle of res judicata should not be applied to an application for bail. The Supreme Court concluded that the earlier order 07.03.2017 should be ser aside. The case would stand revived before the High Court and the matter would be listed for consideration on 03.04.2017 in accordance with the law.

The judgment emphasizes that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are entirely different. It accuses the petitioner of attempting to mislead the court by concealing the fact of an order dated 17.08.2022, which required the petitioner to surrender within a week. The petitioner had not complied with this order. The judgment also notes that the stay on proceedings before the trial court, granted under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was only issued on 28.10.2022. The court suggests that had the petitioner surrendered, they could have applied for regular bail, and the High Court might have directed the trial court to expeditiously consider the regular bail application within three days.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By- Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

1 Nov

The police constable who faced charges of extortion got his bail application denied – Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Prime Legal

Blog #extortion, #haryanahighcourt, #policeconstable, #punjabhighcourt

Title: MOHIT BEDI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: CRM-M-39741-2023

Corum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Decided on: 17^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

Introduction:

Police constable, Mohit Bedi, accused of extortion from the accused Gopal Singh’ s wife, Maryam, filed bail application in Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the prime facie evidence are sufficient enough to hold the case against petitioner and the petitioner is a member of police personnel which constitutes the crime more serious.

Facts:

The petitioner, Mohit Bedi, who was a constable in Special Task Force of Punjab Police, was accused of extortion of Rs 10,00,000 from complainant (Maryam). Based on the complaint of Maryam, Police team from Vigilance Department have conducted a trap operation to arrest the petitioner and co-accused. The complainant presented Rs 2,00,000 i.e. advance amount of total bribe to Vigilance Team and the team have noted down the serial number of the currency and smeared them with phenolphthalein powder. Later, the complainant along with 2 shadow witnesses handed over the same currency amount to co-accused Aman. Aman, on receiving the amount, calculated it with his fingers and kept it in his drawer. The shadow witnesses have witnessed the same and gave signal to the vigilance Team. Vigilance Team, on getting the signal, raided co-accused Aman’s shop, recovered the amount and cross checked the serial number (which mostly matched), and dipped Aman’s fingers in sodium carbonated solution water. The water turned pink which indicated that Aman has used his fingers on the same currency notes.

Aman was taken into custody by Vigilance Team to Special Task Force office, Amritsar. During his custodial interrogation, Aman disclosed that Maryam told him (Aman) that her husband has been arrested by police and police has demanded the said amount from her. Aman also disclosed that Maryam’s husband, Gopal Singh, has contacted him through petitioner’s WhatsApp and asked for help and to settle the matter with police. After the recording of the statement, petitioner Mohit Bedi was arrested.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that cases of extortion are part of a severe crime. And the extortion done by a police personnel do not only degrades the position of the victim, but also deceives his colleagues. The petitioner knew about the illegal dealing of drugs by Gopal Singh and so wanted to have a piece of such a big cake. The evidence presented by Vigilance Team were sufficient enough prime facie accuse the petitioner.

Based on the above findings and observations by Hon’ble High Court, the bail petition was dismissed and the Interim orders was stand vacated. Also the bail bonds, if any, were cancelled.

Written by- Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

21 Jul

It would be against Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Ac for the petitioners to be held any longer. – Haryana high court

Prime Legal

Blog #haryanahighcourt, bail

TITLE: Rajpal v State of Haryana

Decided On-:22.5.2023

CRR-1850-2022 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jasjith Singh Bedi

INTRODUCTION- The current revision petition was filed in opposition to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, order dated August 31, 2022, which denied the applicant’s request for default regular bail.Registered under Sections 20, 25 of the NDPS, 1985, petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The case’s brief facts state that while the police party was on patrol, a tip was received that Mani Ram son of Rajender, Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh, and Vishal son of Hoshiar Singh were behind the wheel of a black Tata Harrier car through the village while carrying a large amount of charas. If the road from Panchi Jattan to Rajpur was barricaded, the three accused could be found and arrested along with the car. A report was written and sent to the Police Station Ganaur in this regard based on the information. After some time, the police team noticed the suspicious car leaving Panchi Jattan’s side as they were doing vehicle checks. It came to an end. Two little boys got out of the car. One young child was seated in the driver’s seat, and another fled the area. The driver was identified as Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh by the arrested youths as Rajender’s son Mani Ram. Vishal was the young man who fled. The recovery of 1 kg 800 gms of charas from the car’s dash board was then accomplished.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The petitioner’s learned attorney claims that since the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for the grant of default bail had only been denied because the deadline for presenting a challan had been extended by 90 days, the petitioner was now entitled to the grant of default bail because the said order extending the deadline for presenting a challan by 90 days had been overturned by this Court in CRR1907-2022, decided on 16.05.2023.

The learned State attorney does not contest the fact that the petitioner was qualified for the award of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. because the order granting the delay for presenting the challan has been reversed.

The hon’ble court has heard both arguments submitted by the parties with their particular reliance on various judgments, hence has made a conclusion stating According to Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, an accused person has an unassailable right to be granted bail since the investigating agency failed to provide the report required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the allotted time. In the present instance, the investigating agency filed a request for an extension in order to get more time for presenting the report required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the absence of the FSL report. An order dated August 2, 2012, granted a 90-day extension. However, the abovementioned ruling was revoked by this Court in an order dated May 16, 2023 that was issued in CRR-1907-2022.

Therefore, the continued detention of the petitioners would be in violation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act once this Court has ruled that the grant of an extension of 90 days in the presentation of the challan itself is unlawful.

Bail granted

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

14 Jul

Judgment on the case’s merits; instead, the trial court should decide the case based on the evidence -Observed by the Punjab High court

Prime Legal

blog #haryanahighcourt

TITLE: Vikas v State of Haryana

Decided On-: June 16, 2023

CRM-M-30321-2023 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj

INTRODUCTION- According to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the present petition has been submitted for the issuance of regular bail in connection with charges under the Indian Penal Code. [409, 418, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B]

FACTS OF THE CASE-

On the basis of information/a report obtained from the Chief Secretary’s office in Haryana and the Director General of Police’s office in the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Haryana, a case was opened. It was alleged that, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the revenue department, different stamp duties had been set forth for the registration of sale deeds for industrial, commercial, and residential plots. Sale deeds are being registered online in accordance with the State Government’s new policy so that the accurate prices of the properties and the stamp duty thereon can be determined. In Rajendra Park, Gurugram, Ravinder Singh, Director of M/s Nippon Steering & Suspension Pvt. Ltd., owned an industrial plot measuring 2 Bigha 19 Biswa 16 Biswansi. This plot was registered under property ID number 106C100U52 with the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram, and according to the Collector Rate, it was valued at Rs. 40,03,39,800/- under the industrial plot category, with a stamp duty. The industrial plot category cost Rs. 40,03,39,800 and the stamp duty was Rs. 2,80,23,786. Said Harish Kumar, Director of M/s Janghu Real Estate Private Ltd, Gurugram, purchased the aforementioned land measuring 2 Bigha 19 Biswa 16 Biswansi from said Ravinder Singh, Director, M/s Nippon Steering & Suspension Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs. 8 crores and paid stamp duty of Rs. 56 lacs showing the land under category of agricultural land via registered sale deed no. 9235 dated

The land was shown to Gair Mumkin according to the revenue records. such that. In a criminal conspiracy, Ravinder Singh, Harish Kumar, and Tehsildar Darpan Singh Kamboj collectively cost the State Rs. 2,24,23,786 in lost stamp duty. In addition, it is claimed that authorization to register the sale deed manually rather than online was given via letter from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, dated 7.01.2022. When plots were cut into the disputed land after it had been falsely classified as “mixed use” and shown to have “approved” status, the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram was accused of conspiring with these individuals and stealing a significant amount of money.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The petitioner’s proficient attorney claims that the petitioner had no involvement in the crime’s commission. According to the case presented by the investigating agency, the co-accused Chiranji Lal is alleged to have contacted Pankaj, who then contacted Shiv Mehra, who then contacted the petitioner. Samar Kapoor, an employee of the Municipal Corporation, is alleged to have changed the property’s description in the property I.D. database in exchange for payment. He contends that the petitioner was held in custody for a longer period of time than those who received regular bail. Further, he contends that the petitioner, Samar Kapoor, who made the necessary change, is at best just a conduit between the beneficiaries. The state’s attorney objected to the petitioner’s request and claims that the petitioner was the key player in changing the property I.D. database, which cost the state exchequer more than Rs. 2.24 crores. Additionally, it is undeniable that the Municipal Corporation employee who made the change to the property I.D. database has already been given an interim bail

The court held it is appropriate to grant the present petition in light of the fact that other suspects in a comparable situation have already been granted the concession of bail, the suspect accused of making the final changes to the property I.D. database is already free on interim bail, the investigation in the case is already complete, and there is nothing more to be recouped from the petitioner.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

13 Jul

The appellant prays in front of the court, seeking that the guilty sentence be reduced to time served under section 392 & 411 IPC- granted by Haryana High court

Prime Legal

Blog #arms, #haryanahighcourt, #IPC

TITLE: Lovepreet v UT Chandigarh

Decided On-: May 24, 2023

CRA-S-47 of 2021 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jaishree Thakur

INTRODUCTION- According to Section 392 of the IPC, the defendant has been found guilty and given a sentence of seven years of hard labour and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; however, if the fine is not paid, the defendant will also be subjected to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a three-year sentence under Section 411 of the IPC.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The complainant, Sanjeev Kumar, gave a recorded statement to the police stating that he was employed at Dhaba, Delhi Paranthe Wali Gali, Sector 22A, Chandigarh.

He was riding his motorbike with the registration number CH76(T)6691 home from work at around 2:00 a.m. He was riding his motorbike when a white colour car pulled up behind him and stopped in front of it in Chandigarh’s sector 22/23. He was asked to turn over anything he was holding when two boys exited the aforementioned car. While the other boy pulled out a gun-like object and struck him in the head, the first boy slapped him.

They violently took Rs. 10,000 from his pocket and a gold chain from his neck while threatening to kill him if he made any noise. The boys then escaped in the same vehicle with the HR-9671 registration number. The present FIR No. 398, dated December 26, 2017, was filed at Police Station 17 in Chandigarh based on the aforementioned statement and was filed under IPC Sections 397, 34, and 411 as well as Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. charge-sheeted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 397 and 392 of the IPC read with Sections 34 and 411. After listening to the parties’ knowledgeable solicitors and evaluating the evidence,

As per the petitioner’s conviction and punishment on the record,

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The appellant’s knowledgeable attorney has argued that while he does not wish to contest the merits of the appellant’s conviction, he would be content if the appellant’s sentence were to be viewed favorably. Given these facts, the sentence meted out to the appellant may be reduced to the one he has already served.On the other hand, learned State counsel argued against the arguments made by learned counsel for the appellant and added a custody certificate to the record, arguing that the sentence given to the appellant was proportionate to the crime he committed. The appellant is not deserving of any indulgence.The conviction of the appellant is upheld in light of the distinctive facts and circumstances of the current case as noted above, in addition to the preceding arguments.

The sentence will be reduced to reflect the time the appellant has already served, though. The same would, however, be contingent on the petitioner depositing costs in the amount of Rs. 10,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers’ Welfare Fund within a month of today. It is made clear that the appeal will be deemed to have been dismissed if the aforementioned sum of Rs. 10,000 is not deposited within the allotted time.

Written by– Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

1 2