UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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