Statement: The High Court ordered State X to submit the case papers of a hit-and-run accident involving actor Mr. Y and directed police not to allow the actor, family members, or friends to meet witnesses or victims.\nAssumptions I–III:\nI. The kith and kin of an accused are likely to tamper with evidence or create a nuisance to help acquit the accused.\nII. The capacity or status of the wrongdoer cannot be a yardstick for deciding punishment.\nIII. The court’s immediate concern is the grievance of the victims which needs redressal.\nChoose the option that correctly identifies the implicit assumption(s).

Introduction / Context:
Court directions that restrict an accused (and associates) from contacting witnesses aim to preserve evidence, prevent intimidation, and ensure a fair trial. We must test which assumptions are minimally necessary for the order to be rational.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I. Associates of an accused might attempt to influence witnesses or disturb proceedings.
• II. The accused’s status should not affect punishment.
• III. The court’s immediate concern is victim grievance redressal.

Concept / Approach:
The operative logic of the order is evidence protection and process integrity. It does not speak to sentencing philosophy (II) nor is it primarily a victim-compensation order (III). The minimal premise is the risk of interference with witnesses or evidence (I).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Prohibiting contact is justified if the court believes contact could taint, pressure, or influence witnesses (I).2) Claim II pertains to sentencing norms and equality before law; the order is pre-trial procedural and does not presuppose a punishment principle.3) Claim III reframes the order as victim-centric grievance redressal, whereas its content targets interference prevention. Not necessary.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if victims’ grievances were already addressed, the order would still be justified on preservation grounds. Likewise, sentencing principles (II) are orthogonal at this stage.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I and II”/“Only I and III”/“All” add superfluous premises; “None of the above” denies the evident interference-risk premise.

Common Pitfalls:
Reading a procedural safeguard as a value statement about punishment or victim policy.

Final Answer:
Only I.