Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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