Back
ANOOP CHITKARA
Azad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. -
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 1357 | 11.11.2022 | Sadar Hisar | 147, 149, 186, 328, 332, 353, 506 IPC and Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. |
| Criminal Case no. before trial Court | CIS No. BA/3263/2022 CNR No. HRHS010174552022 Date of Decision: 02.12.2022 |
Aggrieved by the dismissal of his bail under Section 438 CrPPC, the accused has come up before this court by filing an appeal under section 14A of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SCSTPOA), seeking bail.
2. The appellant had filed a bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, which was dismissed on 02.12.2022.
3. In Prathvi Raj v. Union of India , AIR 2020 SC 1036 , a three-judge bench of Supreme Court read down Section 18 by declaring as follows,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial when imposing bail conditions, and the discretion of the judge to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, the presumption of innocence, and the need to balance personal freedom with the right of pol....
The court emphasized the need for stringent bail conditions to ensure the accused's cooperation with the investigation and non-influence on witnesses.
The judgment establishes the importance of considering the severity of offences, the accused's criminal history, and the need for stringent conditions in granting bail under the SC/ST Act, 1989.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
