Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“It is needless to say that the decision in the bail application would be dependent on the decision in the extension application”
The Trial Court is trying its best to conclude the trial at the earliest, but, many times, many things are not under the control of the presiding officer and all parties concerned shall support the Court in concluding the trial within a reasonable period.
With respect to the offence under Section 304, the duration of imprisonment can only be ascertained at the conclusion of trial, and the period of investigation for that offence shall only be 60 days and not 90 days, unless the facts of a case undisputedly indicate an intention of the accused to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death.
The right to life and liberty is one of the integral part of the Constitution and it is the most sacred fundamental right and the custody of people in the name of various enactments and without adhering to the promptness of the investigation, cannot allow appellant to remain under incarceration.
![chargesheet without FSL report entitle accused to] default bail](https://www.scconline.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/whether-440x293.webp)
The matter has been placed before the Chief Justice of India for considering tagging it with Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar [SLP(Crl.) No.5724 of 2023], wherein similar question is still pending before a three-Judge Bench of the Court.
“The right of an Investigating Officer for further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not taken away only because the charge sheet is filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC against the accused.”
Supreme Court noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of Section 173 (8) is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under Section 173 (2) against the accused.
Supreme Court remarked that the offence was serious in nature, and the High Court had considered all aspects while refusing bail in this matter.
Supreme court said that offences involving terrorist activities having not only Pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States, should not have been taken so lightly.
The Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for the alleged offense of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, punishable under Section 4 of PMLA, based on a scheduled offence allegedly committed under the provisions of Penal Code, 1860.
“The petitioner was the mastermind of the criminal conspiracy, whereas the co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail, are merely middlemen who assisted the petitioner in carrying out the conspiracy.”
Permitting the CBI to pick up one aspect of the investigation and file a piece-meal chargesheet with respect to the same and consequently, defeating the right of the applicant to default bail, goes against the mandate of Article 21.
The Manipur High Court directed the State Authority to pay Rs. 50,000 to the detenu as compensation for his illegal detention in a drug trafficking case.
“The Courts have the power to cancel the bail and to examine the merits of the case in a case where the accused is released on default bail and released not on merits earlier. Such an interpretation would be in furtherance to the administration of justice.”
While quoting “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not fall into a pit?”, the Madras High Court said that the first blind person in this case is the Sessions Judge, who was guiding the Magistrate, who was also blind, due to ignorance of the legal position and ultimately, both fell in a pit, leading to illegal and non est orders passed by the Magistrate.
Allahabad High Court Allahabad High Court dismisses appeal against acquittal order in Babri Masjid Demolition Case In an appeal against
Any irregularity or illegality in the remand order is not a statutorily sanctioned reason for grant of default bail
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ has held that under Section 167 of the Code of
It is the oft-repeated and a salutary principle of law that fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant)