The issue under consideration is whether the result of a polygraph test can become ground of discharge of an accused at stage of charge and could the learned Judge while passing order on application for grant of anticipatory bail, pass an order suggesting to the IO to conduct polygraph test of accused and victim to ascertain the truth of the matter without there being a prayer by accused or prosecution.
The lawyers are bound by their commitment to the duties cast on them by Part VI (Rules Governing Advocates), Chapter II (Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette) of Bar Council of India Rules which define their duties towards the Court, Client, Opponent and Colleagues.
Delhi High Court: Expressing that, the revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial,
Rajasthan High Court: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., refused to interfere with the impugned order due to lack of any legal infirmity. The
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed: “It is well settled that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397/401 IPC the revisional
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Harnaresh Singh Gill, J., rejected the bail application filed by the applicant-accused in connection with the FIR
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, CJ and S. Vishwajith Shetty, J., in view of the present situation