Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner -- General and oblivious allegations of causing injuries -- Even the injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body and the weapons claimed to have been used are blunt weapons – Petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2022 – No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner – Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.06.2022

Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is attributed a 'lalkara' only although the other co-accused are alleged to have caused injuries – Interim bail given, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and even challan has been presented to Court – Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Regular bail -- Injury attracting the mischief of Section 307 IPC has not been attributed to either of the petitioners – Fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19 -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody for more than two months -- Trial is likely to take a long time to conclude -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non vital part -- Thus, it is a debatable question as to whether the said injury would entail the offence u/s 307 IPC, and the same can only be determined on the basis of evidence during trial -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Version and cross-version case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant and his wife by paying Rs.50,000/- each towards medical expenses subject to final outcome of the case -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2020; investigation is complete and it is to be decided during the trial, as to who was the aggressor party, this petition allowed and direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Proclaimed offender -- Regular bail -- Petitioner was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C -- Alleged co-accused had been acquitted -- Although, the petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court during the trial but due to his absence for a period of 1½ months was declared as proclaimed offender -- Petitioner himself surrendered and join the proceedings -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Regular bail -- Petitioner has been attributed only a simple injury on one person, in what was possibly a “free for all” fight in the jail -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2020

Anticipatory bail -- Role attributed to the petitioner was datar blow on the left thumb of the victim -- Interim protection was granted to the petitioner and joined investigation and has co-operated with the investigation process and the recovery has already been made – He is no longer required for custodial investigation -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Anticipatory bail – Names of the petitioner(s) does not find mentioned in the FIR and their names have been mentioned in supplement statement, it is a case of no injury and firing of two gun shots have not been attributed to the petitioner(s) – Interim bail granted with a direction to join the investigation -- Factual position not disputed, though petitioners have joined the investigation but the weapon has not been recovered -- Sufficient exceptional circumstances are made out to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners – Interim bail order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Addition of section – Bail to accused -- Section 307 IPC does not have new genesis in the case – Earlier, police in their own wisdom had chosen to delete Section 307 IPC from the case -- On the same set of facts, the petitioner was earlier arrested, but granted bail pending trial -- Now again; merely on invoking of Section 307 IPC, Court below ordering the arrest of the petitioner – No justification for taking the petitioner into custody – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.09.2020

Regular bail -- Injured has fully recovered -- Petitioner is in custody for over 02 years and 05 months -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Regular bail -- No 'grievous injury' was found to have been sustained by the complainant – One injury on the middle of head was opined to have been dangerous to life – Petitioner alleged to have given a blow with baseball bat on the left side of head of the complainant -- Petitioner having been behind bars since the last more than 7 months and not having been attributed the injury, which has been declared as dangerous to life, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Regular bail – Simple injuries and blunt in nature and no fire-arm injury attributed to the petitioner -- Recovery of pistol effected from the petitioner and there are several FIRs against him -- He is in custody since 06.04.2020, no grievous injury amounting to offence u/s 307 IPC -- After presentation of challan on 29.05.2020, 16 witnesses are required to be examined -- Trial is not likely to conclude in near future keeping in view COVID-19 situation -- No need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Regular bail -- Petitioner suffered three injuries including two fractures on the fingers of his left hand – Though in the said case, the police had filed a cancellation report, yet the fact remains that in the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the proceedings are pending before the SDJM – Petitioner is attributed a sword blow on the abdomen of Taya of the complainant -- Whether or not the petitioner is an aggressor, is yet to be determined -- Petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2019 -- Challan has already been presented and the charges have also been framed -- Regular bail granted to petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.06.2020

Regular bail -- Once the co-accused have already been acquitted and the petitioner is not alleged to have played any active role, it would not be appropriate to further incarcerate the petitioner -- Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2019 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient time, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020