Apprehension Of Justice Being Thwarted Because Of Unholy Political Nexus: P&H HC Denies Bail In 2014 Murder Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied bail to the four accused in a 2014 murder case of a youth holding that apprehension of justice being thwarted because of the unholy political nexus.
A Single Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Verma held, “… gravity of the offence, prima facie involvement and complicity of the petitioners in brutal murder of the son of the complainant, their criminal antecedents, likelihood of again threatening, winning over the witnesses, tampering again with the evidence, apprehension of justice being thwarted by grant of bail to the petitioners because of unholy political nexus having the highest echelons of power and keeping in view the all-out efforts made by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court from time to time resulting into passing a detailed order dated 6.12.2019 in IOIN CRM-M-41639-2014 showing a ray of light even in a dark tunnel …”
The Bench observed that it did not find any trigger point warranting interference by the Court to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners.
Senior Advocate P.S. Hundal appeared on behalf of the petitioners while Assistant Advocate General appeared for the State.
In this case, a man was attacked and murdered by the petitioners as they were nursing a grudge against him because of a quarrel that happened earlier. On the basis of such an incident, the FIR was registered against the accused.
The accused had therefore approached the High Court for the purpose of seeking bail.
The High Court after hearing contentions of both parties noted, “… the petitioners do not deserve the concession of regular bail. … The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are on different footings and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant support the case of the complainant.”
The Court referred to the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, (1978) 1 SCC 240 in which it was held that deprivation of freedom by the refusal of bail is not for punitive purposes but for the bifocal interests of justice.
The Court further said, “Merely because the petitioners are behind the bars for more than three years and trial is not likely to conclude in near future, are no ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioners.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions and rejected the bail of the accused.
Cause Title- Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab