Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
by Aditya Mukherjee* and Jayati Sinha**
The Court stated that “if an FIR is registered prior to 01-07-2023 under the CrPC, it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within the meaning of Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS.”
“The conduct of the litigants to keep the dispute alive for mala fide reasons has the tendency of keeping the docket of the Courts heavy to the detriment of other litigants whose cases have been pending for years together.”
The Court stated that the only test to be applied at the stage of framing of the charge is whether there is sufficient cause made out by the prosecution to proceed against the accused.
“In criminal trials certificate in terms of Section 65-B of the Act is to filed before commencement of the trial. However, the Trial Court, in its discretion, after examining any application by the prosecution under Sections 91 or 311 CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence, may permit production of such certificate at any stage of the trial if no irreversible prejudice is caused to the accused”
The amount of compensation is fixed as a token to remind the Judicial Officers that before taking cognizance and during judicial inquiry and trial, it is the bounden and obligatory duty to go through the complaint carefully and then take cognizance.
“The concerned Investigating Agency cannot expect anyone who is an accused, to sing in a tune which is music to their ears, more so, whence such an accused, is well and truly protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.”
“When a case is committed by the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Session, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and any evidence recorded therein cannot be held to be admissible for the purposes of a de novo trial before the committal Court.”
The Special Judge opined that the prosecutrix’s conduct of never disclosing anything about incident to anybody nor seeking anybody’s help during relevant period, cast a serious doubt on her version of events.
At this stage of bail, it can hardly be said with any conviction that the promise of marriage made by the petitioner to the prosecutrix is ex-facie false; and that it has been made in bad faith, with no intention of being adhered to when it was given.
The Supreme Court made clear that further investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment and hence, the principle of double jeopardy would not apply.
On 10.05.2019, a division Bench had observed that the question with regard to the actual stage at which the trial is said to have concluded is required to be authoritatively considered since the power under Section 319 of CrPC is extraordinary in nature.
Madhya Pradesh High Court | While deciding an application filed for cancellation of bail of the accused who booked for
The Supreme Court was disappointed with the standard of investigation and the defence put up in a gruesome case relating to murder of wife and 4 children by the accused. The Court observed that while the accused was provided with a legal aid, the cross-examination of each and every witness was below average.
Gauhati High Court: While deciding the instant appeal preferred by Ranjan Daimari and 9 others regarding their conviction and sentence
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant petition for quashment of complaint, the Bench of Suraj Govindaraj, J., held that in the
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. while hearing a bail application of a man accused of raping and impregnating a 14-year-old in
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While deciding the instant petition revolving around alleged defamatory tweets concerning the respondent by Bollywood actress Kangna