Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“When an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under section 50 of PMLA to the same investigating agency is inadmissible against the maker.”
“The arrest should be rational, fair and as per law and shall not be merely based upon guilt of accused established from inadmissible evidence.”
From the arrest panchnama it is evident that the information is given to his wife on the cell number provided by petitioner-accused and apart from that there are no grounds of arrest mentioned in the arrest surrender form.
Madras High Court disposed of the habeas corpus petition after reviewing the State’s submissions, which indicated that the arrested individuals had been released on 08-10-2024, due to the Judicial Magistrate’s refusal to accept their remand.
The moment petitioner was intercepted by the Immigration officers around 10:00 pm, on 13-08-2024, allegedly based on a Look Out Circular, he was deprived of his liberty and he ceased to be free.
“When procedural law doesn’t preclude the investigating agency from arresting a person in relation to a different offence while he is already under custody in some previous offence, the accused too cannot be precluded of his statutory right to apply for anticipatory bail only on the ground that he is in custody in relation to a different offence.”
Giving the Government 8 weeks’ time to frame such guidelines, the Court laid down certain steps that must be followed whenever a person is to be summoned under S. 35, BNSS.
The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions
Hemant Soren had resigned from the post of Chief Minister of Jharkhand on January 31, 2024.
The Court stated that the allegations against the police officers are serious, and the latter need to respond to them.
A person accused of an offence under the Penal Code (‘IPC’) who has not been forwarded under Section 167(1) of the CrPC and has voluntarily appeared and filed a surrender petition cannot be dealt with under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
“Judicial comity and judicial discipline demands that higher courts should follow the law. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice.”
Supreme Court, while granting interim protection from arrest to Jayanarayan Mishra, issued notice and Dasti notice to the Standing Counsel for the State.
The High Court observed that Rule 214 of Assam Police Manual has rendered itself archaic and needs to be amended in accordance with the laws laid down by the Supreme Court.
On submission that the accused were ‘coaxed’ to accompany ED officials, Punjab and Haryana High Court concluded that the act was not in pursuance of purported summons issued but an unlawful restraint.
The High Court meaningfully stated the existence of prima facie evidence against the accused is to no avail if there is no justification for the arrest based on the doctrine of clear and present danger to the society.
Allahabad High Court was not convinced with the version of the Police personnel, that such injuries on the petitioner’s skin occurred due to friction on the road when the Police personnel tried to pick him up and put him in the police vehicle.
Supreme Court opined that the Jharkhand High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach and set aside the impugned order. Thus, granted bail to the husband.