A Will That Silences Legal Heirs Without Cause Cannot Speak the Truth of the Testator’s Intent: Orissa High Court Rejects Solemnity of Registered Will Conviction Can Be Set Aside Even in Non-Compoundable Offences If Parties Settle: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC Mere Absence of Ticket or Station Report Not Fatal to Claim: Bombay High Court Says Railway Claims Can Be Proved by Circumstantial Evidence Judgment of Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed Merely Because A Different View Is Possible, Unless It’s Perverse Or Ignores Material Evidence: Himachal High Court Courts Cannot Reopen Admissions Once Deadline Expires: Orissa High Court Rejects SEBC Nursing Aspirants' Plea Filed Post Cut-Off A Sketchy Allegation of Corrupt Practice Can’t Be Cured Later Through Amendment: Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Shiv Sena MLA Delay in FIR, If Plausibly Explained, Cannot Vitiate Claim: Madras High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.26 Crores for Fatal Accident Involving Pillion Rider Failure to Videograph Search Violates BNSS: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Slams Police for Ignoring Procedural Mandates No Customs Duty Without Clear Authority Of Law: Supreme Court Quashes Levy On SEZ Electricity Supplied To Domestic Tariff Area Owner's Admission Cannot Be Brushed Aside to Deny Compensation: Supreme Court Reinstates ₹3.7 Lakh Award to Family of Deceased Driver Benefit Of Doubt Must Prevail Where Eyewitness Testimony Is Infirm And Contradict Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Double-Murder Convict A Mere Error in Bail Orders Cannot Tarnish a Judge’s Career: Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal of Judicial Officer for Granting Bail under Excise Act Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | A Necessary Party is One Without Whom No Order Can Be Made Effectively: Supreme Court Readiness and Willingness Must Be Proven—Mere Pleading Is Not Enough For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Returning Expired Stamp Papers Is No Refund in Law: Supreme Court Directs State to Pay ₹3.99 Lakhs Despite Limitation under UP Stamp Rules Supreme Court Distinguishes ‘Masterminds’ from ‘Facilitators’: Bail Denied to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, Granted to Gulfisha Fatima & Others: Supreme Court Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court Under Section 41 Does Not Extinguish Arbitration Clause in Leave and License Agreements: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Unilateral Appointment Void Ab Initio; Participation in Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver: Supreme Court Section 21 Arbitration Act Is Not a Gatekeeper of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ₹2 Crore Arbitral Award Against Kerala Government

Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Fundamental Principle

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle of "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception." This crucial principle was upheld in a recent judgement delivered by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI on December 15, 2023.

The case in question involved a petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner, SUNNY, who faced charges under Sections 379-B, 411, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with Section 394 IPC added later. These charges were related to the alleged snatching of a mobile phone.

The court's observation on this fundamental principle of bail was clear and resolute: "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception." This principle has been a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence in India, emphasizing that detention should not be mandatory, especially when other means can secure the presence of the accused for trial.

In its detailed judgement, the court also considered the petitioner's detention for about one year and the fact that neither the complainant nor another victim identified the petitioner as one of the accused. The trial was at an initial stage, and the court took into account the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence of the accused.

The final order of the court granted the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, ordering their release on bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate or trial court.

However, the court made it clear that if the petitioner were found involved in similar offenses in the future, the State had the right to seek the cancellation of the regular bail.

Date of Decision: December 15, 2023

SUNNY VS STATE OF PUNJAB

 

Latest Legal News