Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court Grants Bail to 19-Year-Old in Yamunanagar Assault and Robbery Case

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh has granted bail to a 19-year-old boy who had been incarcerated for over a year in connection with an assault and robbery case in Yamunanagar. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, rendered the decision on 7th July 2023.

The petitioner, identified as Vikesh Saini, had sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The case against him was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act, including charges of assault, robbery, and possession of weapons.

Citing the nature of the allegations, injuries inflicted, the petitioner’s young age, and his clean criminal record, the court found no justifiability for his continued pre-trial incarceration. In the judgment, Justice Anoop Chitkara highlighted the need to provide an opportunity for the accused to course correct as a first-time offender.

The court, while granting bail, imposed several stringent conditions aimed at ensuring the safety of witnesses and preventing any potential interference with the investigation. Justice Chitkara stated, “The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor that the accused does not repeat the offense and to ensure the safety of the witnesses, victim, and their families.”

To address concerns of flight risk and influence on witnesses, the court ruled that the accused should furnish a personal bond and surety, surrender any weapons and firearms in his possession, and refrain from contacting the victim or their family. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to procure a smartphone with specified details and comply with location sharing.

Justice Chitkara stressed the importance of striking a balance between the accused’s liberty and the need for a fair trial, stating, “The bail conditions should not deprive rights and liberties and must be proportional to the purpose of imposing them.”

The judgment drew attention to the rapid advancements in technology, emphasizing that impersonation has become virtually impossible and advocating for alternative options to reduce the reliance on sureties and accommodate individuals without permanent addresses.

The court order also cited relevant Supreme Court judgments, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab and Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, highlighting the discretion of judges in granting bail and the need for judicious exercise of such discretion.

The decision of the High Court has brought relief to Vikesh Saini and his family, who had contended that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreparable injustice. While the court order does not limit the police or investigating agency from continuing their investigation, it signifies a significant step toward the petitioner’s freedom pending the completion of the trial.

Date of Decision: 07.07.2023

Vikesh Saini  vs State of  Haryana         

Latest Legal News