ABETMENT TO SUICIDE
SUPREME COURT | Section 306 IPC | Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide
While considering the instant appeal challenging the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court declining the appellant’s prayer to discharge him from the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860; the Abhay S. Oka and K.V. Viswanathan*, JJ., took strict note of casual resorting of Section 306 by the Police. The Court said that while the persons involved in genuine cases where the high threshold under Section 306 is met should not be spared; the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. “It is time the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution”. Read more HERE
ACQUITTAL
SUPREME COURT | Trial Court’s decision acquitting 3 Constables in 20 year old Murder case, upheld
In a set of two criminal appeals against Uttarakhand High Court’s decisions, whereby the High Court confirmed the Head Constable’s conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) and allowed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of constables for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the Division Bench of BR Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ. allowed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The Bench set aside the High Court’s decision reiterating that the prosecution failed to place any evidence to show that the three Constables had a common intention with the Head Constable to shoot the deceased. Read more HERE
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | ‘Child witness evidence appears to be result of tutoring’; Man acquitted of raping 9-year-old girl
In an appeal filed by the convict against the impugned judgment wherein the Trial Court had convicted him under Sections 452 and 376-AB of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(i)(j)(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, the Single Judge Bench of K. Surender, J., allowing the appeal acquitted the accused, holding that acceptance of the child witness evidence would be dangerous in the present circumstances of this case as the evidence appeared to be a result of tutoring. The Court also stated that the prosecution story appeared to be made up for falsely implicating the convict. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘No other evidence except victim’s bare words’; Father acquitted for allegedly having sexual intercourse with daughter
In the present case, the judgment and order dated 23-02-2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Amravait, was challenged whereby the Judge convicted appellant-victim’s father for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n), 323, and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). The Judge sentenced appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(j) of IPC. A Single Judge Bench of G.A. Sanap, J., opined that the father who looked after the victim in the absence of her mother, would not commit such an act with his daughter. The Court further noted that the Medical Officer on the victim’s examination did not notice the injury on her body and similarly, the doctor did not notice an injury to her genitals, except an old, healed hymen, which could not be attributed to appellant. The Court stated that appellant was entitled to get the benefit of the doubt and therefore, appellant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n), 323, and 506 of IPC. Read more HERE
BAIL
SUPREME COURT | S. 306 IPC | Anticipatory bail granted to wife accused of abetting husband’s suicide
In a criminal appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, whereby the anticipatory bail application of the accused-wife for offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was dismissed, the Division Bench of Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. allowed the plea for anticipatory bail noting that the accused-wife had joined the investigation and that she was not required for further investigation. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | Explained | Split verdict on AIMIM member Tahir Hussain’s interim bail plea to contest Delhi Assembly Elections
While deliberating over the instant petition filed by politician Tahir Hussain, who is in custody in connection with several cases including offences under PMLA Act, rioting and murder, had sought interim bail for the purposes of contesting in upcoming Legislative Assembly Elections for NCT of Delhi; the Bench of Pankaj Mithal* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah**, JJ., delivered a split verdict in this regard. While Mithal, J., opined that interim bail is not permissible for the purposes of contesting elections, much less for campaigning; Amanullah, J., on the other hand deemed the petitioner eligible to be enlarged on conditional bail for limited period. Furthermore, since a spilt decision was rendered in the instant case, the Division Bench therefore, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate action. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | [Foreigners Act] SC says no to impleading Registration Officer in foreigner’s bail plea; Directs for informing Registration Officer, if bail is granted
In a set of two criminal appeals, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. answered the issue that whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 (‘the Rules’) in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (‘the Act’) in negative. The Bench opined that while releasing a foreigner on bail, the Court should direct the investigating agency or the State, as the case may be, to immediately inform the concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules about the grant of bail so that the Registration Officer can bring the fact of the grant of bail to the notice of Civil Authority concerned. Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail to Bhupendrasinh Zala accused of financial fraud worth Rs 360 Crores, denied
In an anticipatory bail application filed by businessman Bhupendrasinh Parbatsinh Zala under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a Single Judge Bench of M.R. Mengdey, J., denied the application holding that according to the investigation done so far, it appeared that a large-scale scam was committed by Bhupendrasinh wherein a large number of people had been duped by him. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Bail to temple activist Rangarajan Narasimhan in two FIRs relating to video against Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin
In a criminal original petition filed by temple protection activist Rangarajan Narasimhan, seeking interim bail in two FIRs, the Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan granted bail to him in both the cases. Read more HERE
J&K AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Criminal Courts to “remain sensitive” and avoid “Copy-Paste Syndrome” while deciding Bail matters
While deciding a bail application, a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dhar, J., highlighted the need for sensitivity and accuracy in judicial proceedings, thereby ensuring justice aligns with the fundamental rights of individuals. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Bail denied to a man accused of forcing wife into prostitution
In a bail plea filed by the accused under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) who was charged under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 376-D, 504, 506, 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. denied bail to the accused. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | “Bail is Rule and Jail is Exception”; Trial Court criticized for casual rejection of bail despite key evidence
In a bail application challenging the petitioner’s continued detention despite having victim’s statement which neither named the petitioner nor levelled any allegations against him, a single-judge bench of Anil Kumar Upman, J., granted bail. The Court directed the directed the trial court to provide an explanation for not considering the victim’s statement while rejecting the bail application. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Right to speedy trial is not a ‘free-pass’ for every undertrial to be released on bail’; Bail petition of Neeraj Bawania in double murder case
In a petition filed by the accused under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking regular bail registered under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Penal Code, 1860, a Single Judge Bench of Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., stated that in the present case, the accused had suffered judicial custody of over nine years as an undertrial, and it was not clear as to how long the trial would take to conclude. The accused was stated to be the head of the dreaded ‘Neeraj Bawania Gang’, and therefore, regardless of how long he might have been in jail in the present case, this court was not persuaded to accept that if enlarged on bail, the accused would not indulge in criminality again and would not be a threat to the society at large. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Bail in NDPS case on ground of undue delay in trial, unfettered by rigours of S. 37’; Bail granted to accused of selling narcotics pills
In a bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for offences under Sections 22, 61, and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goyal, J., allowed the application holding that long inordinate custody of the accused as an undertrial, without him being responsible for procrastination of the trial, entitled him to the grant of regular bail in the facts of the present case. The Court also elaborated upon the right to speedy trial and held that the grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, could not be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Boby Chemmanur granted bail in sexual harassment case, cited bail is rule & jail is exception; warned against body shaming
In a bail application filed by businessman Boby Chemmanur (‘Boby’) in a sexual harassment case filed against him under Sections 75(1)(i) and 75(1)(iv) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (‘IT Act’), the Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., granted him bail upon furnishing of a bond worth Rs 50,000. While granting bail, the Court reiterated that for offences which were punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years or which extended to seven years with or without fine, the accused could not be arrested by the Police Officer without sufficient reasons. The Court also reiterated the principle that bail was the rule and the jail was the exception. Further, the Court observed that body shaming was not acceptable in our society, and everybody should be vigilant while making comments about others, whether they were men or women. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Considerations for bail cannot be same in cases involving anti-national activities, terrorism and involvement with dreaded gangsters; Bail petition of UAPA accused dismissed
In the present case, an appeal filed by the appellant (‘accused’) under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) assailing the impugned judgment dated 10-05-2023. As per the impugned judgment, the accused’s application for seeking grant of regular bail for offences registered under Section 120 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 17/18/18-B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), was dismissed. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Co-operation with investigation doesn’t extend to self-incrimination’; Anticipatory bail granted to accused in Municipal Corporation corruption case
In an anticipatory bail application filed in an FIR registered under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B1 of Penal Code, 1860, a Single Judge Bench of Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., allowed the application stating that failure to provide information about the co-accused and aid in recovery of bribe money was not a ground for denial of bail plea and did not amount to non-cooperation with the investigation. The Court also stated that co-operation with the investigation did not extend to compelling self-incrimination, extracting confessions, or using coercion. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail proceedings relate only to the release of a person from ‘judicial custody’ and cannot be employed to seek release from ‘executive detention’
A bail application was filed seeking grant of regular bail in FIR dated 22-07-2022 registered under Sections 366-B, 370, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 109, 120-B, 34 and 174-A of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (‘ITP Act’) but as the proceedings acquired added complexity as regards the jurisdiction of the court seeking to direct the State authorities to also grant an appropriate visa to the petitioner. Jairam Bhambhani, J., granted bail to the applicant and held that the scope of a bail petition is only to consider whether or not, in a given case, an under-trial or a convict seeking suspension of sentence is to be released from the custody of the court, namely ‘judicial custody’ to the custody of a surety and not to verify, or endorse, or direct grant any visa status to a foreign national, who has sought the relief of enlargement on bail. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Protracted absence, eluding law, & repetitive bail pleas don’t call for sympathy’; Anticipatory bail refused to accused in 5kg opium case
In a second anticipatory bail application filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for alleged offence under Sections 18(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’), the Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, J., rejected the application holding that the accused evaded arrest for two and a half years and demonstrated a clear disregard for the judicial process. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Consent to engage in physical relations does not extend to misuse of a person’s private moments in an inappropriate manner
A bail application was filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)/Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in FIR for offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Neb Sarai, Delhi. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., dismissed the bail application as the attempt to weaponize the complainant’s marital status and professional background to diminish the gravity of the allegations is unacceptable. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bail granted to IIM graduate for drunk driving; directs community service holding a ‘Don’t Drink and Drive’ banner
In a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) in an FIR under Sections 110, 132, 281, 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., allowed the application while holding that the applicant-accused’s further incarceration was not warranted considering his future prospects since he was young and highly educated. The Court granted bail subject to furnishing a bail bond worth Rs 1 Lakh and community service wherein the accused would stand near a check post every weekend for three months while holding a banner warning against drinking and driving. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail granted to four co-owners of coaching centre basement in flooding case leading to death of three civil services aspirants
In the bail applications filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in an offence registered under Sections 105, 106(1), 115(2), 290, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), Sanjeev Narula, J., noted that the prosecution had primarily relied on clause (d) of the lease deed dated 05-1-2024, by which knowledge of the lessor and lessee was established, as it was clearly mentioned that the lessee intended to use the scheduled property for the commercial purpose/for coaching institutes only. However, the Court stated that prima facie, it was unable to find how such a standard clause could attribute ‘knowledge’, under section 105 of the BNS, onto the accused persons. Thus, the Court found the present case fit for granting bail. Accordingly, the order dated 13-09-2024, granting interim bail to the accused persons, was now confirmed as regular bail on the same terms and conditions. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail denied to wife accused of inflicting severe burns on husband with boiling water and red chilli powder
An anticipatory bail application was filed by the accused who allegedly caused severe burn injuries to her husband, seeking bail on grounds of gender and arguing that she was a victim of domestic violence inflicted by her husband. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., rejected anticipatory bail considering the nature of injuries, way the injuries were caused and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Read more HERE
CONTEMPT OF COURT
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Contempt case initiated against former constable and his advocate questioning partiality of two Judges in Full Bench
The Full Bench of the Court comprising of Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Chief Justice, Savitri Ratho and S.S. Mishra, JJ. while taking suo motu cognizance of the preliminary objections raised against the constitution of Full Bench initiated a contempt case against the present petitioner/ deponent of the affidavit and the advocate who filed the affidavit. Read more HERE
CONVICTION
SUPREME COURT | Conviction of two brothers turned from S. 302 to S. 304 Part I of IPC in 23-year-old co-villager’s murder case
In a criminal appeal against a decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the present two convicts under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was upheld, and the third accused (father of convicts) was acquitted, the Three-Judge Bench of BR Gavai, KV Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh*, JJ. partly allowed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s view that there was no patent illegality in the Trial Court’s decision. However, the Court converted their conviction to under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC. The Court said that the fact that the father of the convicts was acquitted would not warrant their acquittal as there was sufficient and cogent material evidence against them to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | Man’s conviction under S. 498A IPC and S. 4 of DP Act in 19-year-old dowry case, confirmed; sentence reduced to time served in custody
In a criminal appeal against Madras High Court’s decision, whereby the accused person’s conviction for offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘DP Act), was confirmed, the Division Bench of KV Viswanathan* and SVN Bhatti, JJ. partly allowed the appeal, while sustaining the conviction for the offences mentioned above. However, the Bench set aside the High Court’s decision to the extent of imposing and modifying the sentence, considering that the case went along for nearly 19 years and that the accused had already undergone custody for three months. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Conviction and sentence of Actor and politician S.Ve. Shekher for derogatory comments against women journalists, confirmed
In a criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) praying to set aside the judgment passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, for trial of criminal cases related to MP’s and MLA’s of Tamil Nadu and acquit Actor and Politician S.Ve. Shekher against the charges under Sections 504, 509 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, P. Velmurugan, J. refused to interfere with the conviction of S. Ve. Shekher for making derogatory comments against women journalists. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Compliance with Section 16 of Carriage by Road Act a pre-condition for instituting suit for consignment loss
In a civil revision challenging trial court’s order allowing the defendant to participate in the suit proceedings when the recovery suit is non-maintainable, a single-judge bench of Ashok Kumar Jain, J., held that compliance with Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 is a mandatory requirement for instituting a suit against a common carrier for loss or damage to a consignment and set aside the trial court’s order. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Merely smoking is no ground to conclude that victim is of deviant character’; Conviction u/s 377 IPC, upheld
In an appeal filed by the appellants (‘accused persons’) under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the offence punishable under Section 377 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), C.S. Sudha, J., stated that the victim had agreed that he used to smoke, but not drink. Merely because the victim admitted that he used to smoke, would not be a ground to conclude that he was of a deviant character. The Court stated that there was no reason to disbelieve the victim, who had clearly deposed regarding the over acts of the accused persons. It was highly improbable and unlikely for the victim to have fabricated such a false story against the accused persons, especially when he had no motive or reason(s) to do so. The Court stated that there was no reason to disbelieve the victim, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Read more HERE
CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
SUPREME COURT | ‘Application of force must be with intent to outrage modesty of woman’; Proceedings against man for offence under S. 354 and 506 IPC, quashed
In a criminal appeal assailing the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, whereby the accused person’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash the chargesheet and proceedings for an offence under Section 354 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) was allowed, the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol*, JJ. held that the sum total of the circumstances, submissions and documents on record, did not point to the committal of any offence against the complainant. Hence, the Court set aside the impugned judgement of the High Court of Judicature and resultantly, the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR were also quashed qua the present accused person. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | ‘Filthy language’ examined in isolation without any context indicating intention to insult modesty, doesn’t fall under S. 506 IPC
While considering the instant appeal challenging Karnataka High Court’s decision refusing to quash chargesheet filed against the appellants for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 of the Penal Code, 1860 and for allegedly using filthy language against the complainant; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., explained that in the instant case it will be essential for the Court to carefully assess the evidence presented, in order to determine whether there is sufficient material to establish the intention and knowledge on the part of the appellants, to insult the modesty of the complainant or, whether any act was intended to shock the sense of decency of the complainant being a woman. The Court pointed out that the term “filthy language,” when examined in isolation, and without any contextual framework or accompanying words, indicating an intent to insult the complainant’s modesty, does not fall within the purview of Section 509 of the IPC. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Specific directions on free medical treatment to rape, acid attack, and POCSO case victims/survivors by all public/private hospitals, issued
In a criminal appeal filed under Section 415 read with 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) by accused who was alleged to have repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault upon the survivor, a Division Bench of Pratibha M. Singh* and Amit Sharma, JJ. was informed that the survivor could not avail free medical treatment without repeated intervention by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (‘DSLSA’). Thus, the Court reiterated the legal position and issued specific directions in this regard. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Sexual assault against minors also attacks their innocence and sense of safety; often leave permanent psychological scars; Bail application of POCSO accused, dismissed
In a bail application filed by the applicant (‘accused’) under Section 483 read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered under Sections 75/76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 10/12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., stated that the present case reflected a profound trauma suffered by the victim, a minor, at the hands of a person she trusted — her neighbour, in whose house she had gone to play, and whom she addressed as chacha. The Court stated that the crimes of sexual assault against minors were not just violations of their physical integrity but also attacked their innocence and sense of safety and often leave permanent psychological scars. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court stated that no case for grant of regular bail was made out at this stage, and accordingly, dismissed the present application. Read more HERE
CRIMINAL TRIAL
KERALA HIGH COURT | Path cleared for remote cross-examination via video conferencing to streamline court proceedings
In a criminal miscellaneous case filed against the order passed by Sessions Judge, wherein the Judge rejected the petition filed by the accused seeking permission to conduct cross examination of the prosecution witnesses through video conferencing citing health reasons and the counsel’s inability to travel up to Thiruvananthapuram. V.G. Arun, J. while quashing the impugned order, granted permission for cross examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses through video conferencing. Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘No application of mind, precious time of police & Court wasted’; Police, Prosecution and Trial Court slammed for invoking POCSO Act after 8 yrs of FIR
In an application seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 354, 504, 427, and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860, (‘IPC’) and the subsequently added Sections 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and the quashing of the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the transfer of the case to POCSO Court, the Single Judge Bench of Sandeep N. Bhatt, J., stated that it strange and shameful on the part of the entire law enforcement and adjudicating machinery that the case transfer application was filed eight years after the trial had proceeded substantially before the Trial Court under IPC. Rebuking the authorities involved, the Court disposed of the application while holding that the prayers sought were not required to be considered at this stage, but the accused could avail the appropriate remedy according to law. Read more HERE
INVESTIGATION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Refused to continue monitoring the murder investigation of CPI leader Govind Pansare; directs Trial Court to expedite hearing
In a criminal writ petition filed by the daughter (Smita Pansare) and daughter-in-law (Dr. Megha Pansare) of Govindrao P. Pansare (‘Govind Pansare’), the deceased leader of Communist Party of India, seeking the appointment of an independent Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) to investigate the murder of the late politician and monitoring of the said investigation by this Court, a Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari* and Kamal Khata, JJ., held that since that the investigating agency had investigated the allegations of the family, continuous monitoring of the further investigation solely for the arrest of the two absconding accused persons by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not necessary. Read more HERE
JUVENILE
SUPREME COURT | “Consistent failure of judicial machinery to recognise and act upon plea of juvenility”; Convict directed to be released after 25 years in prison
While deliberating over the instant case wherein the Division Bench of M.M Sundresh* and Aravind Kumar, JJ., observed grave injustice that had been perpetrated on account of consistent failure on part of the judicial machinery to recognise and act upon the constitutional mandate vis-a-vis the plea of juvenility in the instant case and allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant’s sentence imposed in excess of the upper limit for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder in 1994. In the instant case, the Court found that the appellant had undergone imprisonment for almost 25 years, during which time, the society has undergone significant transformation which the Appellant might be unaware of and find difficult to adjust with. Therefore, the Court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to play a proactive role in identifying any welfare scheme of the State/Central Government, facilitating the Appellant’s rehabilitation and smooth reintegration into the society upon his release, with particular emphasis on his right to livelihood, shelter and sustenance guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Read more HERE
NDPS
SUPREME COURT | ‘No bar under NDPS Act on interim release of seized vehicle’; Truck ordered to be released from seizure for transporting 24.8 gm heroin
In a criminal appeal against Gauhati High Court’s decision, whereby, the appellant truck owner had sought release of his vehicle which was seized by the police on recovery of heroin after his application was dismissed by Trial Court, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Manmohan, JJ. allowed the appeal and directed the Trial Court to release the vehicle in question in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same. Further, the Court directed that the appellant shall not sell or part with the ownership of the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and shall furnish an undertaking to the Trial Court that he shall surrender the vehicle within one week of being so directed and/or pay the value of the vehicle (determined according to Income Tax law on the date of its release), if so ultimately directed by the Court. Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUPREME COURT | Private complaint allowed for offence of false evidence before a Tribunal, considered as the only remedy
In a criminal appeal against the Calcutta High Court’s decision on an application filed by the accused-respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), declining to grant relief to the appellant for allowing his private complaint for alleged offences under Section 193, 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) before a Tribunal, on grounds that such a complaint under CrPC can only be made on directions of the Court concerned, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. allowed the appeal and held that the only way out available for the appellant was to file a private complaint. Therefore, the Court set aside the High Court’s decision and directed the Tribunal to entertain the private complaint. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | Legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 Evidence Act, until the presumption is rebutted by proving ‘non-access’
While considering the instant appeal challenging the decision of Kerala High Court wherein it had held that the legitimacy of birth was irrelevant when considering the right of the child to receive maintenance from their biological father; the Division Bench of Surya Kant* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., set aside the impugned decision of the High Court and held that legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving ‘non-access’. The Court also clarified that an ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate the access between the spouses and prove non-access thereof. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | Section 319 CrPC | Person can be summoned to face trial even if police does not name him as an accused in chargesheet
In a criminal petition against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision, rejecting the criminal revision application and affirming the Trial Court’s decision summoning the accused persons herein to face trial for murder, the Division Bench of JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ., dismissed the petition and upheld the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the Trial Court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | CBI doesn’t require State Govt’s consent to register FIR under Central Law against Central Govt employee posted within State
In a set of two criminal appeals by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) assailing the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgments for quashing of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’), the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned decision reiterating that the CBI does not require permission from the State Government to register an FIR under the Central Legislation against a Central Government employee. Read more HERE
PRISONS, PRISONERS AND PROBATION OF OFFENDERS
SUPREME COURT | State of Jharkhand directed to formulate Jail Manual incorporating provisions of Model Prison Manual, 2016
While considering the instant appeal by the State against final order of the High Court quashing the memo issued by Inspector General of Prisons, Ranchi, making intra-State transfer of the respondent from Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to Central Jail, Dumka, within Jharkhand; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., reiterated the call for prison reforms for creating a better environment and prison culture to ensure the prisoners enjoy their right to dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court pointed out that there is no clear-cut picture regarding prison administration and the facilities available to the prisoners in the prisons in the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, the Court directed State of Jharkhand to formulate or expedite the formulation of a Jail Manual incorporating the applicable provisions of the 2016 Model Prison Manual, for effective prison administration and ensure its strict compliance by the prison authorities. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | Benefit under Probation of Offenders Act granted to 70-yr-old involved in armed clash following family feud
In a criminal appeal against the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, whereby, the convict’s plea for setting aside his conviction was partly allowed, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh*, JJ. allowed the appeal by directing the release of the convict, extending the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, considering that a similar benefit was granted to the other accused persons in the cross-case and that a settlement was reached between the parties and neither any criminal antecedents nor any adverse material against the conduct of the convict was present. The Court directed the convict to execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with surety of like amount for six months with the undertaking that he will maintain peace and good conduct in the society, and that he will not repeat the crime and will appear at his own expense to face punishment when called by the Court. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | Section 174A IPC is an independent and substantive offence that can continue despite extinguishment of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC
In an appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(‘CrPC’) the Court refused to quash complaint case, summoning order; and order declaring the accused a proclaimed offender passed by the Judicial Magistrate, the division bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment held that Section 174-A of Penal code, 1860 (‘IPC’) is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is extinguished. It is a stand-alone offence. Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Judicial Department is unable to locate the file and the individual is languishing in the correctional home; Calcutta High Court directs premature release
An application has been filed in a contempt petition seeking compliance with the recommendations of the State Sentence Review Board after the Judicial Department is unable to locate the file relating to a direction of premature release of the applicant. Shampa Sarkar, J., directs correctional home authority to release applicant 1 based on the recommendation made by the State Sentence Review Board. Read more HERE
GAUHATI HIGH COURT | ‘Consideration of PO Act is right of accused and duty of Courts’; Benefit under PO Act granted to Headmaster & his son convicted of assaulting student’s mother
In a criminal revision petition filed by the convicts against the Appellate Court’s judgment upholding their conviction under Sections 3231 read with Section 342 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Single Judge Bench of Arun Dev Choudhury, J., allowing the petition held that it was a fit case for the grant of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘the PO Act’) and directed their release on probation. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Rule 11(1)(v) of Rajasthan Parole Rules recognises wife’s impending delivery as valid ground for emergent parole
In a criminal writ petition seeking release on parole to attend wife’s delivery, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., directed the District Magistrate to promptly decide petitioner’s pending parole application within four days from the date of this order, considering the urgency of the matter. Read more HERE
QUASHMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ FIR
SUPREME COURT | ‘Acts of accused were too remote and indirect to constitute offence under S. 306 IPC’; Proceedings against mother accused of abetting suicide of son’s girlfriend, quashed
In a criminal appeal against Calcutta High Court’s decision, whereby the chargesheet for offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the other two accused persons was quashed, while the present applicant’s (‘accused’) plea for quashing the chargesheet was rejected, the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma*, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s decision to the extent of refusing to quash the chargesheet qua the present accused. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | ‘High Court can quash proceedings using power either under Art. 226 or under S. 482 of CrPC’; FIR quashed against foreign national
In a criminal appeal against a decision of Allahabad High Court, refusing to quash the First Information Report (FIR), the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. held that the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR, as the FIR did not disclose the commission of the offence as alleged. The Bench added that besides the vague allegations, the rest of them, even if taken as true, did not disclose the commission of any offence and made out a case against, the present accused. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned decision along with the subject FIR. Read more HERE
SUPREME COURT | ‘Non-mentioning of vital facts of assault or criminal force in FIR/ Complaint, would vitiate cognizance taken by CJM’; Proceedings under S. 353 & 186 of IPC, quashed
In a criminal appeal against a decision of Allahabad High Court, wherein the accused person’s plea for quashing of the chargesheet and order taking cognizance and issuing summons along with the proceedings for an alleged offence under Sections 353 and 186 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), was rejected, the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decisions. The Court quashed the case pending before CJM holding that non-mentioning of vital facts in the FIR/first complaint, which would indicate assault or criminal force within the scope of Section 353 of the IPC, would vitiate the cognizance taken by the CJM. Read more HERE
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT | NI Act proceedings quashed due to invalid cheque issued from merged bank
A petition was filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by the petitioner/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings before Additional Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., quashed the proceedings since the cheque was invalid because it was drawn on the State Bank of Hyderabad, which ceased to exist after merging with the State Bank of India. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Ends of justice would not be met by quashing FIRs’; Jurisdiction under S. 482, CrPC refused to be exercised
In a batch of writ petitions wherein the petitioners in the first petition had approached the Court to quash/de-register the criminal proceedings based on a First Information Report (‘FIR’) under Sections 115(2), 352, 79, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’), a Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., held that specific contentions of offences were made out in the FIRs and ends of justice would not be met by quashing the same. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘Spoke what was written in Manusmriti & in general parlance’; Hate speech complaint against VCK president & MP Thol. Thirumavalavan for comments on Hindu women, quashed
In a petition filed by Thol. Thirumavalavan, the President of the political party Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) and Member of Parliament, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 forquashing of a private complaint filed against him under Sections 120-B, 295-A, 298, 500, 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for a speech he gave regarding Hindu women, pending before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur (‘DJM’), the Single Judge Bench of P. Velmurugan, J., while quashing the complaint, held that Thirumavalavan only spoke what was written in the book Manusmriti and in general parlance, thus, prima facie no case was made out against him under the alleged offences. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Husband’s inability to cohabit is a condition known to him and does not travel beyond home’; FIR quashed against husband’s relatives
The present application was filed by Applicant 1-the complainant’s husband, with a prayer to quash FIR registered against applicants under Sections 489-A, 417, 506, and 344 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) in Vijapur Naka police station, Solapur and it was further prayed to issue direction to the said Police Station to stay the investigation and not to file charge sheet till deciding of the present application. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ., allowed the application to the extent of Applicants 5 to 8, being maternal uncles and their wives, but rejected it to the extent of Applicants 1 to 4, stating that there were grave and serious allegations against them. The Court opined that Applicant 1’s relatives could not have had the knowledge of his condition of being unable to develop physical relations with the complainant, because such condition normally was known to the person himself, and such information does not travel beyond the home. Read more HERE
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | FIR refused to be quashed against Former Minister KT Rao over alleged misuse of public funds in Formula E Championship
In a criminal petition filed by former Minister Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao (‘KT Rao’) under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 409 read with 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’), the Single Judge Bench of K. Lakshman, J., held that prima facie case was made out against KT Rao under Section 409 of IPC and Section 13(1)(a) of the PC Act. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘High time for society to preserve sanctity of medical profession and to uphold dignity of Doctors’; FIR against 70-year-old Gynecologist in miscarriage case, quashed
In a criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records in connection with FIR on the file of the All-Women Police Station, Srirangam, Tiruchirappalli District and quash the same, K. Murali Shankar, J. while quashing the FIR held that the ingredients of Section 312, Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) are not met against the third accused. Permitting prosecution would be unnecessary, unwarranted, and amount to an abuse of process of law. Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Proceedings quashed against law students for ragging 1st yr student, considering mutual settlement, directed to volunteer at orphanage
In a criminal petition to quash the criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 294/341/323/324/506/ 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against students at SOA National Institute of Law, the Single Judge Bench of Sibo Sankar Misra, J. allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the law students. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity; petition to quash complaint dismissed
In a petition filed for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) alleging that the petitioners and other accused persons had committed offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 452, 506 and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.*, stated that to interpret Section 468(3) of the CrPC, in a manner which considers the relevant offences to be the ones in respect of which summons were issued would lead to absurdity. As on the one hand, the complainant would be expected to be diligent and adhere to the limitation period while filing the complaint, but if the Court subsequently was to drop one of the more serious offences as a consequence of which the limitation period would get reduced, the complaint which was within the limitation period as per the offences alleged in the complaint would now suddenly be rendered time-barred. The Court observed that in the present case, the complaint was filed by the respondent under Sections 323, 324, 341, 452, 506 and 34 of IPC. The offence which had the most severe punishment was the one under Section 452 of IPC, which provides for imprisonment up to seven years. The Court stated that, since no limitation period was provided for offences punishable with more than three years of imprisonment, therefore, the impugned complaint could not be stated to be barred by limitation. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Mere statement that wife cannot cohabit with husband unless she brings amount without any action will not amount to harassment’; FIR quashed
In a criminal application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) as well as the proceedings therein, the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Rohit W. Joshi, JJ., allowed the application while holding that the allegations were vague and the witness statements were copy pasted. The Court also rebuked the investigating authorities for the manner in which investigations are carried out in such cases. Read more HERE
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Life imprisonment sentence of persons convicted of murder, suspended
In an application filed for suspension of sentence and release on regular bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) against the judgment and order of conviction dated 07-03-2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, whereby the accused persons were sentenced to life imprisonment (rigorous) as well as simple imprisonment along with fine for offences punishable under Section 3022 read with Section 114 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, a Division Bench of Ilesh J. Vora and S.V. Pinto*, JJ. stated that the chance of the appeal being heard in near future was extremely remote and suspended the sentence of the convicts during the pendency of the appeal, thereby enlarging them on bail subject to certain conditions. Read more HERE
TERRORISM/ ORGANISED CRIME
SUPREME COURT | [MCOCA] Bail granted without considering embargo placed by special statute, set aside; remands matter to HC for fresh consideration
In a criminal appeal by the deceased’s widow against the grant of bail to accused persons 1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 320, 120-B, 201, and 212 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’), the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar* and Sanjay Karol, JJ. allowing the appeal, remanded the bail application for offence under MCOCA for fresh consideration by the Bombay High Court. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Not a case of passive support to terrorist organisation’; Bail denied to alleged ISIS associate in UAPA case
In an appeal field by the appellant (‘accused’) under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Act, 2008 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the impugned order dated 23-08-2023, whereby the bail applications were dismissed, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma*, JJ., stated that the accused was an educated person and was well-aware of the nature of activities of ISIS. Moreover, it was not a case of passive support to a terrorist organisation, but rather the chats, showed that the accused was advocating Jihad to establish Khilafat. By doing so, the accused was also trying to recruit the individuals on these online groups for such acts. Thus, the Court opined that the mandate of Section 43(D)(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’) was clearly applicable, and under these circumstances, the impugned order did not warrant any interference. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Support to terrorist organization monetarily or in the form of networking prohibited; Bail appeal of LeT accused rejected
An appeal was filed challenging the impugned order dated 02-08-2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge wherein it rejected the appellant’s application seeking bail. A division bench of Prathiba M Singh, and Amit Sharma, JJ., held that there is no need for any interference with the bail appeal as the evidence prima facie establishes the culpability of the appellant. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Religious terrorism is tragic & dangerous phenomenon”; Bail denied due to strong prima facie evidence & National Security threat
In an bail application filed by appellant, leader of group “Fisabillilah”, who is accused of promoting Jihad, supporting banned terrorist organizations (ISIS), and planning acts of violence including a conspiracy to attack the Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur, a Division bench of Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari* and Anuradha Shukla, JJ., upheld the trial court’s decision and affirmed the need for a careful balance between individual fundamental rights and the broader interests of national security in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Read more HERE