The Court further observed that the accused had been in custody since 12 July 2024, for nearly a month, and that the presentation of the charge sheet and the subsequent trial would take considerable time. Therefore, the Court concluded that keeping the accused in custody would serve no useful purpose.

In granting bail, the Court remarked, “Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the nature of injuries, and the period of incarceration, but without commenting on the merits of the case to avoid prejudice, the application for regular bail is allowed.” The accused was granted bail on the condition of furnishing bonds of Rs 1,00,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate.

The FIR was lodged by Ranjit Singh, who claimed that he and a woman advocate had gone to Vikas Malik’s office to serve a notice related to a case against Malik and Punjab and Secretary Swarn Singh Tiwana. According to the complainant, Malik assaulted him on his face and chest, and two other advocates present with Malik allegedly pushed his head against a wall.

Following the FIR, which was initially registered for assault, the Chandigarh Police later added charges of attempted murder and violations of the SC/ST Act. Malik was apprehended on 12 July 2024 from Dera Bassi, Mohali, Punjab, and arrested later that night by the District Crime Cell in Sector 24, Chandigarh.

On 10 July, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana had suspended Vikas Malik’s licence, barring him from practising in any court. However, the Bar Council of India subsequently stayed this suspension.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the decision of the Central Government to discharge an Agniveer, Gourav, within three months of training after a large scar was found on his left leg. The division bench, comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Karamjit Singh, rejected Gourav’s appeal against the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Regional Bench, Chandimandir, which had earlier dismissed his case.

Gourav had challenged his discharge, arguing that the scar did not impair his ability to serve as a soldier and that he was entitled to compensation under the Agnipath Scheme. However, the High Court ruled that the scar, deemed hypertrophic and potentially problematic during rigorous training, was a pre-existing condition not caused or aggravated by military service. The court concluded that the decision to discharge Gourav was justified and that he was not entitled to any compensation under the Agnipath Scheme.