Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Inmates face social stigma which can disrupt relationships with family and friends and the incarcerated persons often suffer long-term consequences from having been subjected to pain, deprivation, and extremely atypical patterns and norms of living and interacting with others.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“Hearing these cases, we realize how much rigid gender roles and patriarchy have trickled down into societies and guide our thoughts and actions, even in ways we do not understand, at times. We unfortunately continue to follow and perpetuate such unconsciously, which surely warrants continuous education and close introspection.”
“The arrest should be rational, fair and as per law and shall not be merely based upon guilt of accused established from inadmissible evidence.”
Supreme Court directed that the accused be released on bail, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. However, if the Trial Court or the State finds that the accused who has been granted bail is delaying the trial, they can approach this Court by way of an application to recall this order.
“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.”
The State did not oppose the recall of the termination order but contended that the it cannot be directed to bear the medical expenses of the delivery.
Perusing relevant provisions of Guardianship Act, the Court pointed out that a father is a natural guardian of a minor in the absence of any order otherwise passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
In cases of dislocation of minors from a foreign country to India, whenever children have been removed from their native country to India, the Court shall, in the best interest of the child, order for the return of the child to his native country.
The Court stayed the order dated 02-07-2024 passed by the Exclusive Magistrate, CBI, Patna, whereby CBI’s application for remand of the 13 accused was rejected.
The Court referred to Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559, wherein it was explained that no lexical dexterity nor precedential profusion is needed to come to the realistic conclusion that he who is under the control of the court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439, CrPC.
“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.”
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.
“While fair and temperate criticism of the Court, may not be actionable, but attributing improper motives or tending to bring Judges or Courts into hatred and contempt or obstructing directly or indirectly with the functioning of Courts is serious contempt of which notice will be taken.”
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.
“We do not think that it would be in the best interest of the minor child, who is currently five years old, to be separated from his mother and his elder sister, who are living in Vinnytsia, Ukraine.”
Madras High Court pointed out that at this juncture that the minor child had been under the grandparents’ care since birth, which was disturbed due to the strained relationship between the parties.
The convict was charged with offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Delhi High Court issued a mandatory reminder, rather than a gentle reminder that it is essential to emphasise that in cases involving offences of serious nature, particularly those falling under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, no form of mediation is permissible.
Supreme Court said that the fact that when custody of the child was handed over to the aunt , she was un-married, and is now married having two children will not be a deterrent for this Court to come to the conclusion that best interest of the child still remains with the aunt as the child is living with her ever since she was 3-4 months old.