Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Court said that even though the petitioner’s conduct in jail was ‘unsatisfactory’, he had already been punished for the offences committed in the prison and had already atoned for them.”
“Glorification of an accused is fundamentally detrimental to the interests of society and undermines the integrity of the justice dispensation system.”
“The well-known principle of “Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty,” gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.”
“It is against the Constitutional mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution which does not provide for religious conversion, it only provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.“
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on Delhi Water crisis; NEET UG 2024; Delhi Excise Liquor Policy; AOR exam; Manish Sisodia Bail; Seven sub-rights of Right to Property and more. It also covers top stories; Never reported Judgments; Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in June; Know thy Judges.
The Delhi High Court stated that a prima facie case of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was made against K. Kavitha based on the material placed on record.
The Court stated that overall conspectus of the case based on broad probabilities does not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition and possession as well as concealment of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar connected to the “proceeds of crime”.
‘The D.G.P., U.P., Lucknow is directed to file affidavit enclosing the circulars related to the accountability of the Investigating Officer, Supervising Officer, Monitoring Officer and other higher officials, by the next date of listing’
The Court opined that materials available on records do not suggest that there are reasonable grounds to believe that respondent is not guilty of committing the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Court noted that the appellants had participated in spreading hatred against the State and in spreading anti-national agenda through various means of propaganda including use of electronic media by creating WhatsApp groups and circulating messages detrimental to the interest of the nation.
There is a distinction between “Law and Order” and “Public Order”, i.e., offences that target specific individuals fall under the category of “Law and Order” and it is only when the criminal activities of an individual adversely affect the public at large that their conduct is deemed to disturb “Public Order”.
“A striking balance is necessary while considering the matter of bail of a juvenile from the angle of best interest of the child, demands of justice to the victim and the concern of the society at large.”
“In the absence of an opinion of the experts it is difficult for this Court to conclude as to whether it is a case for grant of interim bail on the medical grounds. The Court cannot assume the role of an expert and make assessment of its own as regard the medical condition of the petitioner based on medical records placed on the Court file.”
If any accused chooses to avail legal remedy and that too in terms of specific judicial pronouncement, he cannot be blamed for causing delay in the matter. Since he continued to be in detention, he was, even otherwise, not going to dig out any advantage at all, by exploring such other possible legal avenues.
“We are conscious of the legal position that we should be we are slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted by the High Court, however it is equally well settled that if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside.”
The Court stated that as the executive has largely been unsuccessful in curbing the escalating threat of cybercrime, one potential solution could involve limiting the maximum number of prepaid SIM cards per individual as cybercrime predominantly takes place through prepaid SIM cards.
Allahabad High Court took note of the fact that the Maulvi is in jail only since February 2024
The Bombay High Court noted that the applicant was in jail for the last nine years and during trial he was on bail for some period, and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
“Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide the timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as has been done in the instant case.”
The minor was charged with various sections of the Penal Code, 1860 including Section 279, 304-A, 337 and certain other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.