Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari Upholds Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception Principle in Recent Bail Grant

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that reinforces the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, granted regular bail to the petitioner in the case FIR No. 111 dated 04.07.2023. The case, which involved charges under various sections of the IPC, saw Justice Tiwari applying the seminal principle that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception,” a doctrine deeply rooted in the Indian legal system.

The petitioner, Rajender Yadav, was accused under Sections 323, 342, 307, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in a case registered at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh. Represented by Mr. Dinesh Maurya, the petitioner sought relief from the court, citing false implication and lack of direct involvement in the alleged crimes.

In his ruling, Justice Tiwari emphasized the sanctity of individual liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He stated, “The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person. However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is the presumption of innocence, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.”

The decision reflects a judicious balance between upholding individual rights and ensuring the interests of justice. The court noted that the petitioner had already undergone incarceration of more than six months and that the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future. As such, the court deemed it appropriate to grant bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

This ruling, while not commenting on the merits of the case, serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to protecting personal liberties and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The case has drawn attention for its adherence to legal precedents and its reflection of the judiciary’s role in balancing individual rights with societal interests.

Date of Decision: 05.01.2024

RAJENDER YADAV VS STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH   

 

Latest Legal News