Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 139
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AMIT KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
FIR No. 203
The court granted bail due to lack of credible evidence against the petitioner and prolonged detention without trial.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 307, 326, 324, 341, 120-B, 148, 149 - Grant of regular bail - The petitioner, accused of hiring assailants who attacked the complainant's brother, argued that he was implicated based on suspicion without credible evidence - The petitioner has been in custody for approximately 10 months, and charges have yet to be framed - The court noted that the petitioner is not among the assailants and further detention would not serve any useful purpose. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court emphasized that the absence of credible evidence against the petitioner and the prolonged detention without trial necessitate the grant of bail. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of hiring assailants who attacked the complainant's brother, resulting in serious injuries. The petitioner has been in custody for about 10 months, and charges have not yet been framed against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is not among the assailants and that further detention would not serve any useful purpose given the lack of evidence and the duration of custody.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the lack of evidence and the duration of his detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s continued detention was unnecessary due to the absence of credible evidence linking him to the crime and the significant time already spent in custody without trial.
Result: The petition is accepted, and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.
1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.
2. The FIR in question was lodged wherein it is alleged that Amit Kumar (petitioner) and @ Babbu Instagram accused on photographs on Instagram is alleged that late 1 17022-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision:
- Amit Kumar Versus State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner.
- Mr. Inderjeet Singh Lather, DAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Gurdev Singh Dated Police Station 04.11.2023 Dina Nagar District Gurdaspur GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR in question was lodged on the statement of Kuldeep Singh, wherein it is alleged that Amit Kumar (petitioner) and Babbu had posted their own photographs alongwith a girl on Instagram. When the complainant’s brothers Pradeep Singh accused on 17.10.2023 about the same and objected to posting of such photographs on Instagram, a confrontation took place amongst them. It is alleged that later on 01.11.2023, when the complainant alongwith his IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RM-M-17022-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2024 ...Petitioner ...Respondent GURVINDER SINGH GILL Advocate, for the petitioner.
- Mr. Inderjeet Singh Lather, DAG, Punjab, Gurdev Singh.
- Section/s Dina Nagar 307, 326, 324, 341, 120-B, 148, 149 IPC The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned on the statement of Kuldeep Singh, wherein it is alleged that Amit Kumar (petitioner) and Abhishek Kumar posted their own photographs alongwith a girl on . When the complainant’s brothers Pradeep Singh asked the 17.10.2023 about the same and objected to posting of such , a confrontation took place amongst them. It , when the complainant alongwith his B, The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned on the statement of Kuldeep Singh, Abhishek Kumar posted their own photographs alongwith a girl on the 17.10.2023 about the same and objected to posting of such , a confrontation took place amongst them. It , when the complainant alongwith his 1 of 3 brother Pradeep Singh w by 5 unknown persons, who were carrying injuries to Pradeep Singh with the help of their weapons.
- that Abhishek and Amit Kumar ha complainant and his brother.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner h the basis of suspicion without there being any credible evidence to show that the assailants had inflicted injuries to the complainant’s brother at the instance of the petitioner or co that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 10 months and that charges are yet to be framed.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel report, which is taken on record, murderous assault made on the complainant’s brother, which included an injury on the head with a out. Learned State counsel has, however, not disputed the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars is not involved in any other case. is yet to commence inasmuch as charges have not been framed so far.
5. This Court has
6. The petitioner admittedly is not amongst the assailants. The allegation against the petitioner had attacked the complainant and his brother. In any case, the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 10 months and otherwise has a 2 17022-2024 (O&M) brother Pradeep Singh was going on their motor by 5 unknown persons, who were carrying injuries to Pradeep Singh with the help of their weapons. that Abhishek and Amit Kumar had hired the said assailants to harm the complainant and his brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had not inflicted any injury and has been nominated only on the basis of suspicion without there being any credible evidence to show that the assailants had inflicted injuries to the complainant’s brother at the instance of the petitioner or co-accused Abhi that the
