Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Jails Should Not Be Overcrowded with Undertrial Prisoners - High Court Emphasizes Prudent Use of Detention

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Ram Lubhaya, involved in a grievous assault case. The case, registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including attempt to murder, has been under the legal scanner since July 2023.

In a landmark observation, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar emphasized the need for a judicious approach towards arrest and detention. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating, "Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners... arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly." This observation formed the crux of the decision to grant bail.

The FIR against Lubhaya and his family members included serious allegations like administering kirpan blows and baseball bat attacks, leading to severe injuries to the complainants. Despite the gravity of the charges, the court’s decision to grant bail has been influenced by broader considerations about the treatment of undertrial prisoners.

Justice Brar, in his ruling, noted that Lubhaya had been in custody since July 7, 2023, and the trial had not yet commenced. He underscored, “No useful purpose would be served by further detention of the accused-petitioner.” This statement reflects a shift in judicial thought, prioritizing the rights and welfare of undertrial prisoners.

The decision is a significant reminder of the judicial system's responsibility towards undertrial prisoners. It highlights the need to balance the rights of the accused with the demands of justice, especially in cases where trials are delayed.

While granting bail, the court made it clear that its observations should not influence the trial's merits. The trial is expected to proceed impartially, ensuring justice for all parties involved.

The High Court's decision in this complex assault case opens up a broader conversation about the treatment of undertrial prisoners in India. It sets a precedent for other courts to consider the prolonged detention of undertrials and its impact on the justice system.

Date of decision: 12.01.2024

RAM LUBHAYA   VS STATE OF PUNJAB         

 

Similar News