Punjab & Haryana High Court grants bail in knife attack case, cites delay in trial and youth of accused
Case Name: Vikrant @ Akshay v. U.T. Chandigarh
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-23191-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the bail petition of Vikrant @ Akshay, accused in a knife assault case under Sections 307, 341, 506, and 34 IPC. The Court noted that while one injury was grievous, the petitioner had already undergone over a year in custody, trial progress was slow, and indefinite detention of a young first-time offender would adversely affect his future prospects. It reiterated that pre-conviction incarceration should not be punitive when the trial is likely to take considerable time.
Summary: The case arose from FIR No. 59 dated June 30, 2024, registered at Police Station Maloya, Chandigarh, alleging that the victim, Shanky Rana, sustained multiple knife wounds inflicted by the petitioner. Out of five recorded injuries, injury No. 4 — located on the left side of the chest — was declared grievous in nature, while the rest were simple. During earlier proceedings, the Court had sought clarity on conflicting medical opinions, including cross-examination statements suggesting the injuries were recoverable and could have been caused by a fall.
The status report confirmed that injury No. 4 was certified grievous by the Department of Forensic Medicine, GMCH-32, Chandigarh. The prosecution argued that human blood detected on the knife and the victim’s T-shirt matched the same DNA profile, strengthening the case. The defence countered that DNA evidence alone could not conclusively prove the petitioner’s role and that the final determination of guilt must await full trial evidence.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth observed that out of 24 prosecution witnesses, only 13 had been examined and that the petitioner, aged 21, had remained incarcerated for over a year. Considering the slow pace of the trial and the petitioner’s clean record, the Court found continued detention unjustified.
Decision: The High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, directing his release on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate. It clarified that observations made would not influence the merits of the trial and directed the lower court to expedite proceedings independently in accordance with law.