Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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