Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Madras HC Upholds Default Bail Of Accused Under UAPA

Posted in: Criminal Law
Thu, Jul 8, 21, 20:57, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4185
Union of India v. Vivekanandan @ Vivek granting default bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) over an alleged offensive Facebook post

In a well-written, well-worded, well-articulated, well-analysed, well-reasoned, well-balanced and well-substantiated judgment titled Union of India v. Vivekanandan @ Vivek in Criminal Appeal Nos. 272 and 275 of 2021 that was reserved on June 18, 2021 and then finally delivered on June 28, 2021, the Madras High Court upheld the decision of a lower Court, granting default bail to a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) over an alleged offensive Facebook post. It must be apprised here that a two Judge Division Bench of Madras High Court comprising of Justice PN Prakash and Justice R Pongiappan also admonished the investigating agencies for their lackadaisical approach in handling the case. The Court without mincing any words opined In this case, we find that there was absolutely no diligence at all and accordingly refused to interfere with the impugned bail order. Very rightly so! All courts must rule accordingly as the Madras High Court has ruled so commendably in this notable case!

We all saw how recently Father Stan Swamy who is an 84-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist was arrested and jailed last year under the draconian anti-terror law UAPA in connection with the Elgar Parishad case. Mary Lawlor who is a United Nations Special Rapporteur for human rights defenders tweeted that, The news from India today is devastating. Human Rights Defender (HRD) and Jesuit priest Father Stan Swamy has died in custody, nine months after his arrest on false charges of terrorism. Jailing HRDs is inexcusable. Jharkhand and Kerala Chief Ministers Hemant Soren and Pinarayi Vijayan as also Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra posted messages of tributes.

What police forgets is Father Stan Swamy is not Lt Col Prasad Shrikanth Purohit who is not just young about 49 years old but also was trained rigorously in Officers Training Academy and faced the hardships of Army life due to which he was able to face all sorts of ruthless torture perpetrated by an Army Intelligence Officer Col RK Srivastav along with some Mumbai ATS officers like late Hemant Karkare, Param Bir Singh (the current Thane Police Commissioner) and who was recently embroiled in a huge controversy and we saw how the Apex Court chided him for not trusting the very organization that he had served for 30 years and advised him that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones on others as also some other Maharashtra ATS officers like Mohan Kulkarni (then ACP-Mumbai in ATS) and Arun Khanvilkar (then Senior Inspector of ATS) for brutally torturing him for weeks pre and post recording of the arrest on November 5, 2008 as Lt Col Purohit disclosed in his letter to NHRC. Even Times Now news channel had reported this shocking letter soon after it was out in the open. The shocking 24-page letter written by him to National Human Rights Commission in December 2013 which one can read from the website www.pgurus.com exposes shocking details of how terribly he was tortured for weeks by a Military Intelligence Officer and Maharashtra Police ATS team in October and November 2008 so that he could own up wrongly as being the mastermind behind terror attacks that happened in those times as in Malegaon! Lt Col Purohit survived nine years of jail facing merciless torture which is nothing but a miracle and it is due to his guts, gumption and gall to face everything most boldly but Father Stan Swamy could not survive even nine months because he was not trained in some Army training camp for months and months together unlike Lt Col Purohit nor was he young! Still one has to concede that what Lt Col Purohit braved – illegal arrest which has been questioned even by former Army Chief Gen Shankar Roy Choudhary when Col Purohit was given bail and illegally detained, illegally arrested and illegally tortured and illegally kept in jail for 9 long years without even charge sheet not being filed against him which is most shocking, most disgraceful and must be a real eye opener for our law makers not to trust police blindly and punish them most strictly when they dare to take a senior Army Officer for granted and violates his rights as an Army Officer and as a human being for more than 9 years but right now what we see are that they have escaped with impunity and have not been held accountable at all but on this UN and EU as also human rights activists in our country and world over maintain a pin drop stoic silence!

Anyway, coming back to the case at hand, Justice R Pongiappan who authored the common judgment for himself and Justice PN Prakash sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in para 1 that:
Calling into question the legality and validity of the two orders, both dated 05.05.2021, passed by the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Chennai at Poonamallee (for brevity the Special Court at Poonamallee) in Crl.M.P.Nos.168 and 181 of 2021, in and by which, the prayer for police custody of the respondent (Vivek/A.1) has been rejected and bail has been granted to him, respectively, the Inspector of Police, National Investigating Agency, Chennai, has filed these two criminal appeals.

Before para 1, it is mentioned at the outset that:
Prayer in Crl.A.No.272 of 2021: Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, to set aside the order dated 05.05.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.168 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judge for NIA Act Cases, Poonamallee and to give the respondent for police custody. Prayer in Crl.A.No.275 of 2021: Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.181 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Judge for NIA Cases, Poonamallee dated 05.05.2021 and cancel the bail granted to the respondent.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then puts forth in para 2 that:
The legal issue raised by the National Investigating Agency in these two criminal appeals lies in a very narrow compass, to decide which, it may be necessary to refer to a few dates and events.

2.1 Vivekanandan @ Vivek (A.1)/respondent allegedly uploaded an offensive post in his Facebook account, for which, the Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai, registered a case in Cr.No.1916/2020 for the offences under Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short the UAP Act) and Section 505(1)(b) IPC against Vivek (A.1) and arrested him on 16.12.2020, produced him before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, who remanded him in custody. Seemingly, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, has been placing Vivek (A.1) in judicial remand from time to time under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

2.2 For the offences alleged in the FIR, the time period prescribed for default bail under Section 167 Cr.P.C. is 90 days and accordingly, the 90th day fell on 15.03.2021. While that being so, by order dated 12.03.2021 of the Central Government, the investigation of the case in Thallakulam P.S. Cr.No.1916 of 2020 was entrusted to the National Investigating Agency (for short the NIA) and the NIA re-registered the case on 14.03.2021 as RC/07/2021/NIA/DLI in accordance with their procedure under Section 13(1)(b) of the UAP Act and Section 505(1)(b) IPC. However, the Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station was proceeding with the investigation of the case in terms of Section 6(7) and 10 of the NIA Act.

2.3 Seemingly, another FIR in Cr.No.2594 of 2020 was registered against Vivek (A.1) in which he was arrested by the State police and was being remanded in custody from time to time.

2.4 On 15.03.2021, the Public Prosecutor representing the Thallukulam police, filed an application before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai, under Section 43(D)(2) of the UAP Act in Cr.No.1916 of 2020 and Cr. No.2594 of 2020, since, under the UAP Act, the trial Court is the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge.

2.5 It may be pertinent to state here that Vivek (A.1) was being remanded from time to time in Cr.No.1916 of 2020 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, whereas, the Public Prosecutor representing the local police had filed an application under Section 43(D)(2) of the UAP Act for remand extension beyond 90 days before the Principal District Court, Madurai, where, the records of the case itself were not available.

2.6 For both the cases, viz., Cr. 1916 of 2020 and Cr. No. 2594 of 2020, the Public Prosecutor filed a common petition under Section 43(D)(2)(b) of the UAP Act for extension of period of remand from 90 days to 180 days.

2.7 The Principal District Judge, Madurai, returned the petition on the ground that individual reports should be filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 43(D)(2)(b) of the UAP Act for each crime number.

2.8 Accordingly, on 16.03.2021, the Public Prosecutor filed two petitions (reports) under Section 43(D)(2)(b), in which, notice was ordered on Vivek (A.1). It is alleged that Vivek (A.1) refused to receive the notice in the prison when the police tried to serve it on him and therefore, it was returned with the endorsement that he refused to receive it.

2.9 Since charge sheet was not filed either by the State police or by the NIA on or before 15.03.2021, Vivek (A.1) filed a petition for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, who returned the petition on the ground that the case has been transferred to the NIA.

2.10 The petition that was filed by the Public Prosecutor for the local police before the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai under Section 43(D)(2)(b) of the UAP Act in Thallakulam P.S. Cr.No.1916 of 2021, seeking extension of remand period from 90 days to 180 days, was taken on file as Crl.M.P. No.1924 of 2021 and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.03.2021.

2.11 In the State of Tamil Nadu, the Sessions Court for Bomb Blast Cases in Poonamallee has been designated as the Special Court under the NIA Act. Therefore, the records in Thallakulam P.S.Cr.No.1916 of 2021 were transferred from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, to the file of the Special Court at Poonamallee on 08.04.2021. Further, the remand proceedings of Vivek (A.1) was also transferred from the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, to the Special Court at Poonamallee.

2.12 Before the Special Court at Poonamallee, the NIA filed an application on 20.04.2021 for police custody of Vivek (A.1) under Section 167 Cr.P.C., which was taken on file as Crl.M.P. No.168 of 2021.

2.13 Vivek (A.1) also filed an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 26.04.2021 in the Special Court at Poonamallee, which was taken on file as Crl.M.P. No.181 of 2021, in which, he submitted that the period of 90 days had expired on 15.03.2021 itself; he filed a bail application on 17.03.2021 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, where he was being remanded from time to time, but, the Magistrate did not pass any orders on the ground that the case was transferred to the NIA, thereby depriving him of his indefeasible right to be released on bail.

2.14 The Special Court at Poonamallee heard Crl.M.P. No.181 of 2021 filed by Vivek (A.1) seeking bail and Crl.M.P. No.168 of 2021 filed by NIA seeking police custody and passed two separate orders on 05.05.2021 granting bail to Vivek (A.1) and dismissing the police custody application filed by the NIA on the ground that bail has been granted to Vivek (A.1).

2.15 While Crl.A. No. 275 of 2021 has been filed against the order dated 05.05.2021 passed in Crl.M.P. No.181 of 2021, Crl.A.No.272 of 2021 has been filed against the order dated 05.05.2021 passed in Crl.M.P. No.168 of 2021.

Be it noted, the Bench then makes it clear in para 4 that:
The power of the Court to grant police custody beyond the period of 15 days in a case investigated by the NIA for the offences under the UAP Act is no more res integra in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji vs. State of Gujarat and another (2004) 6 SCC 672. Therefore, the limitations prescribed in C.B.I., Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 will not apply to a case investigated by the NIA for the offences under the UAP Act.

To say the least, the Bench then states in para 5 that:
Now, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the grant of statutory bail to Vivek (A.1) was proper and legal.

Simply put, the Bench then mentions in para 6 that:
Mr. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the appellant, placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rambeer Shokeen vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 3 wherein, the Supreme Court has held that unless the prayer for extension of remand period is rejected, no right would accrue in favour of the accused for grant of statutory bail. In other words, the Supreme Court has held that during the pendency of the consideration of the request of the Public Prosecutor under Section 43(D)(2) of the UAP Act, the accused cannot be enlarged on statutory bail. The corollary of it is that if the application of the Public Prosecutor is rejected, the accused would be entitled to statutory bail.

Most significantly and also most remarkably what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then elucidated in para 7 wherein it is held that:
In our considered opinion, on the facts of the case at hand, the law laid down in Rambeer Shokeen (supra) cannot be pressed into service by the NIA, since the application under Section 43(D)(2) of the UAP Act was filed only on 16.03.2021, which is after the expiry of the 90th day. The law laid down in Rambeer Shokeen (supra) will come to the aid of a diligent police officer and Public Prosecutor who approach the jurisdictional Special Court with the request for extension of the remand period by filing in time the report under Section 43(D)(2) of the UAP Act. In this case, we find that there was absolutely no diligence at all. Vivek (A.1) was being remanded by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, from time to time even after the authoritative pronouncement dated 12.10.2020 of the Supreme Court in Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616. The State should have ensured that Vivek (A.1) was being produced before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, for remand. Unfortunately, they did not do that. However, the Public Prosecutor had approached the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, with a manifestly defective report under Section 43(D)(2) of the UAP Act by combining two crime numbers. This shows how the State had acted in a cavalier manner for extinguishing the statutory right of a prisoner to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutor presented his report only on 16.03.2021 and that too before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, when the case had already been transferred to the NIA as early as 12.03.2021. Vivek (A.1) became entitled to default bail on 15.03.2021 as charge sheet was not filed by then. Since Vivek (A.1) was being produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, he naturally filed the default bail application on 17.03.2021 there. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai did not pass any orders on the default bail application that was filed by Vivek on 17.03.2021 on the ground that the NIA has taken over the investigation of the case. Strangely, the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, passed an order on 19.03.2021 extending the remand period to 180 days, ignoring the fact that his Court was not the designated Special Court under the NIA Act. Apposite it would be refer to the following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 on the sanctity of the report of the Public Prosecutor:

23. .....The use of the expression on the report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period as occurring in clause (bb) in sub-section (2) of Section 167 as amended by Section 20(4) are important and indicative of the legislative intent not to keep an accused in custody unreasonably and to grant extension only on the report of the public prosecutor. The report of the public prosecutor, therefore, is not merely a formality but a very vital report, because the consequence of its acceptance affects the liberty of an accused and it must, therefore, strictly comply with the requirements as contained in clause (bb)...... (emphasis supplied).

As a corollary, the Bench then states in para 8 that:
In such view of the matter, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rambeer Shokeen (supra) will not come to the aid of the appellant and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 05.05.2021 passed by the Special Court at Poonamalee in Crl.M.P. No.181 of 2021 granting bail to Vivek (A.1). As a sequel, Crl.A. No.275 of 2021 is dismissed.

Finally, the Bench then holds in para 9 that:
Since the order of the Special Court at Poonamallee granting bail to Vivek (A.1) is upheld, axiomatically, police custody cannot be ordered. As a sequitur, Crl.A.No.272 of 2021 also stands dismissed. To sum up, both the criminal appeals are dismissed.

To sum up, it is high time and now police should not be allowed to get away easily with impunity even after holding mercilessly the liberty of a citizen to ransom by not completing the investigation in time and not filing the charge sheet in time due to which even senior and serving Army Officer like Lt Col Prasad Shrikanth Prasad Purohit is made to face not just merciless torture from police but also rot in jail for 9 long years without even trial being started against him and for next so many years will keep facing trial! This is not due process of law but due murder of law which happens shamelessly right under the nose of the judiciary! Judiciary must stop being a mute, helpless and hapless spectator!

In this case, the Madras High Court has however taken the right stand and has rightly upheld the default bail granted to the respondent by the Special Court and refused boldly and bluntly to entertain an application for police custody! It is high time and the police as also the State must stop acting in a cavalier manner as has been very rightly called upon by Madras High Court in this leading case who has taken them to task for extinguishing the statutory right of a prisoner to be released on default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC and upholding the rights of the accused to default bail under UAPA! No accused should be kept in jail if police fails to complete investigation within the stipulated time and does not file a charge sheet and if someone is in jail for more than three months, he/she must be acquitted!

It merits no reiteration that police cannot just shamelessly keep demanding years and years as we saw in Lt Col Purohit's case who inspite of being a decorated soldier who got Army Commendation Card also and yet police did not file charge sheet even after 9 years due to which he had to rot in jail for so long! Accused must be at least released from jail forthwith if police fails to act in time as stated in UAPA and other penal laws! Of course, our law must be amended promptly in this direction accordingly so that no one stays in jail for bloody 9 long years like Lt Col Purohit as others are not so strong like him and we have seen how Father Stan Swamy died just 9 months after his arrest in jail as he could not tolerate it! This blatant violation of human rights by police shamelessly whether it is Mumbai ATS or NIA or anyone else must end forthwith by amending the law in this direction accordingly!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top