Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

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   

 

Similar News