Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Abhay Chaturvedi, JJ., allowed an application for suspension of sentences and granted bail to the accused-applicant due to improper findings in the evidence.

According to the facts of the case, the accused-applicant was alleged to have caused two fatal injuries to the deceased using an iron rod. The injuries caused to the deceased were specifically attributed to the accused Babu Khan and the accused-appellant was alleged to have caused the injury with the iron rod. In a High Court order dated 23-05-2019, one of the co-accused had been an extended indulgence of suspension of sentences.

The Senior Advocate representing the accused-applicant, J.S. Choudhary assisted by Tarun Dhaka, challenged the impugned judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, stating that the trial court erred in its finding since according to the post mortem report, no injuries on the body of the deceased were traced to have caused by the usage of a blunt weapon. The Senior Advocate also submitted and brought to the notice of the court that the co-accused was granted an indulgence of suspension of sentences by the present court also due to the same reason.

The Public Prosecutor representing the respondents, Anil Joshi, vehemently and fervently opposed the submission by the accused-applicant counsel.

The High Court upon perusal of evidence placed on record and the facts of the case accepted the petition for suspension of sentences and suspended the sentences passed by the learned trial court till the final disposal of the case. The High Court granted bail to the accused-applicant upon execution of personal bond with two sureties.[Sakeer Mohammad v. State, D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 749 of 2019, decided on 11-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Division Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Sanjay Kumar Gupta, JJ. dismissed this petition as no special circumstances could be made out for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail at this stage.

The present application was filed to seek a stay of operation of the Judgment of conviction passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi and also sought bail. The application states that the applicants/appellants were falsely prosecuted.

Counsels for the applicants/appellants, Navneet Dubey and Deepali Arora, submitted that the impugned judgment is erroneous and was pronounced in the light of bad evidence; ridden with material contradictions and discrepancies. The appellants have been incarcerated for more than seven years now.

Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355; Atul Tripathi v. State of U.P., (2014) 9 SCC 177 and Suddu Kumar v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 583 of 2015, date of decision 09-03-2017, were relied upon by the applicants.

The Respondent – State was not represented by anyone.

The prosecution case was that on 21-03-2012 at 2 p.m., information from a reliable source was received by the Police Station, Mahore to the effect that a person namely Nazir Ahmed is lying dead near the house of Haji Khushi Mohd. He was taken in suspicious circumstances for burial. The then SHO Vijay Dhar, Inspector along with Mohd. Sharief, ASI, Gulzar Ahmed and Abdul Hamid, Constables rushed to the spot in a Government vehicle. When they reached the spot, they found the dead body near the house of Haji Khushi Mohd. Thereafter, both the applicants/appellants were arrested. During the investigation, it was found that the deceased was suffering from Tuberculosis and was bed-ridden for many years. During the years, illicit relations between the appellants developed which the deceased knew about. He forbade both of them. They killed him ultimately. Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted both of them and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

The Court observed that the appellants instead of arguing the main matter stressed on seeking bail. Section 426 of State Code is pari materia to Section 389 CrPC (Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail). State of Haryana v. Hasmat, 2004 SCC (Crl.) 1757 was cited by the Court; in which it was held that – “The appellate court is duty-bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the period the accused-respondent was granted parole.” The same analogy was given in the case of Kishori Lal v. Rupa, (2004) 7 SCC 638.

The Court after considering all the matters at hand, held that the appellants are not entitled for bail even though they are in custody for more than five years and from the law cited in Akhtari Bi (if appeal cannot be decided within five years, the court may consider the bail application of appellant; but in present case the instant appeal is of 2018) and Atul Tripathi’s case. The Court further observed that there are many appellants convicted in similar offences and are languishing in jails for more than five years of post-conviction stage. [Abdul Rashid v. State of J&K, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 590, decided on 08-07-2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Court has dismissed the bail plea of self-styled preacher Asaram Bapu in connection with a sexual assault case lodged against him in Gujarat. The bench headed by Justice N V Ramana was informed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, that the trial in the case was going on and 210 witnesses were yet to be examined.

The bench, while dismissing the bail plea, said the lower court will proceed with the trial and will not be influenced by the prima facie observations given by the Gujarat High Court earlier while dismissing Asaram’s plea. Two Surat-based sisters had lodged separate complaints against Asaram and his son Narayan Sai accusing them of rape and illegal confinement among other charges.

(Source: PTI)

Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by ANI, RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav has been granted bail by the Jharkhand High Court.

[More details will be updated soon.]


As reported by the media, The fodder scam involved the withdrawal of money for supplying non-existent fodder for imaginary livestock. The withdrawals that started during the tenure of Mishra when he was chief minister continued during the tenure of Lalu as chief minister and spanned over a decade.

Over the span of various hearings, it was discovered that in an enormous number of cases, fodder was not bought or conveyed and fake bills created.

Lalu had lost his post as chief minister after he was convicted in one of the court cases relating to the scam.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: S.A. Dharmadhikari, J. granted bail under Section 439 CrPC, where the applicant was charged for ‘Deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion’ under Section 295-A Penal Code, 1860.

The applicant was arrested on the allegations that he uploaded filthy language on social media, specifically facebook in the name of God. It was argued by the counsel for the applicant, R.K. Dubey that such was a false and frivolous case registered against the applicant. Further, it was submitted that the applicant was very young, just about 22 years old and had been in custody for a long time. The counsel stated that the investigation was pending and the charge sheet was not filed yet. But the long period of detention in the custody may spoil the career of the applicant as the trial may take some time. The counsel assured the Court that there was no possibility that the applicant will abscond or will tamper any material evidence if he was released on bail.

On the contrary, the public prosecutor, Sanjeev Mishra, opposed the bail application that such was a serious offence and could have caused a ruckus in the society and had outraged the religious feeling of the public at large.

The Court revalued the arguments of both the parties and deemed it to be a fit case for bail. Bail was granted by the Court subject to conditions.[Fezal Khan v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1461, decided on 05-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: B Sudheendra Kumar J., allowed a bail application and relieved the accused person from the custody. 

In the instant case, the accused persons were charged under Section 143 (Punishment for being member in unlawful assembly), Section 147 (Punishment for rioting), Section 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), Section 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint), Section 120-B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy) for involving inflicting injuries on the injured person. One of the accused was involved in using a torch as a weapon to assault the injured. 

The High Court upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the incident was not pre-meditated. The court also considered the period of detention of the accused persons while granting the bail. The Court noted the fact that the other accused persons in the matter had already been granted bail and the remaining accused were in detention for an extended period of time. It granted bail on condition of executing bonds and also stated that the petitioners shall be observed if they involve themselves in a similar act during the pendency of the trial.[Karthik v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1990, decided on 26-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Faiz Alam Khan, J., allowed the bail application which was rejected by the subordinate court on the ground that material on record was not properly appreciated.

 A bail application was made by the applicant against the crime registered under Sections 302, 201, 376 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC /ST Act. 

Dileep Kumar Yadav, Counsel for the applicant submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case. Nothing, as claimed by the prosecution, was committed by the appellant. It was further submitted that, there was no direct evidence in this case. An apprehension was stated in the statement given to the Investigating Officer by the informant that the appellant wanted to marry the deceased and he being of a different caste, Informant was not inclined to get her daughter (deceased) married with the appellant and on the basis of this enmity, the appellant had committed the crime with the help of other co-accused persons namely Pintoo Yadav, Pappu Mishra and Shanti w/o Gopi. The counsel also informed that the witness who had given the statement was Pradhan of the village and had enmity with the accused. The other co-accused persons against whom identical allegations had been levelled, was released on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court and thus on the above ground and fact that appellant had no criminal history, prayed for the bail. 

Counsel for the respondent opposed the contention raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that, there was no illegality, so far as the rejection of the bail application of the appellant by the Subordinate Court was concerned, as he had committed a heinous offence. 

The court opined that I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. The bail was thus granted with the conditions, breach of which shall be the ground of cancellation. [Shaguni v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 2409, decided on 4-7-2019] 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Manoj Kumar Garg, J., suspended the sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court and allowed the bail applications.

In the instant case, the appellants were charged and convicted by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta under Sections 304 (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender), Section 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), coupled with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Penal Code, 1860. They were charged under the abovementioned sections due to attacking the deceased with sticks (laathis) and fist blows, due to which the individual succumbed to the injuries.

The counsel representing the appellants, Vineet Jain and Ravindra Acharya, submitted before the High Court the post mortem report of the deceased which showed the deceased to have received only a single injury and no other injuries, as contrary to the facts of the case.  They also put forth that the laathis were recovered from the possession of the appellants however, upon examination no blood was found on the same. The counsels also persuaded the High Court to note that the accused-appellant, Deepak has been behind the bars since 2013 and the appellant-Raju has been in judicial custody since 2014 and therefore, due to the pending of appeal proceedings since long, they should be released from such custody.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, Mukhtiyar Khan opposed the bail application.

The High Court after considering the evidences put forth, and keeping in view of the delay in the appeal proceedings, allowed the bail applications and suspended the substantive sentences awarded to the accused-appellants. The appeal was filed under Section 389 (Suspension of sentence pending the appeal) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the High Court noted the fact that there has been a long delay in the appeal proceedings resulting in the accused spending almost five years in the respective custody’s hence were to be released upon executing the bail bonds with sureties.[Deepak v. State Of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1272, decided on 02-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vivek Rusia, J. dealt with a bail application where the petitioner sought bail for the offence under Section 14 of the State Security Act and thereby granted the said bail to the externed petitioner.

The first bail application was filed under Section 439 CrPC by the petitioner who was externed by the District Magistrate under the State Security Act. The petitioner was found within the prohibited area of Dewas and was subsequently arrested. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Hitesh Sharma submitted that the offences had been tried by the court and the petitioner was ready to abide by the conditions.

The counsel for the State, Akshat Pahadia, submitted that there were several cases against the petitioner and therefore he was externed for a period of one year.

The Court observed that an investigation was over and the offences attracted the penalty of three years. It was further observed by the Court the fact that early conclusion of the trial was a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty and the material placed on record did not disclose the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice, the Court was though inclined to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner but with certain stringent conditions in view of nature of offence. Hence, the bail was granted.[Jakir v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1286, decided on 26-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: R. C. Khulbe, J. refused to grant a bail where the applicant was charged under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution stated that a complaint was lodged against the applicant mentioning that he was posted as Deputy Manager in Kalawati Nyas Dharamshala, Dehradun. The applicant used to stay in Dharamshala of the complainant every month for a few days. Applicant disclosed to the colleague of the complainant that there were vacancies in Secretariat of Government of India, Delhi for the post of Junior Clerk. The son of the complainant was unemployed and applicant demanded Rs 3 lakhs for getting employed the son of the complainant and demanded Rs 50,000 as advance. Further, it was alleged by the prosecution that the said complainant gave the advance money on the very same day. In the same way, other relatives of the complainant believed the complainant and gave money to the applicant. The complainant was accused of the fraudulently received amount of Rs 20 lakhs from the complainant and his relatives on the pretext of providing job to the son of the complainant and other relatives of the complainant.

The applicant alleged that he was falsely implicated in the crime and hence bail should be granted to him.

The Court found that, FIR stated the commission of a heinous crime and hence no bail was granted to the applicant.[Shambhu Nath v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 541, decided on 27-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Ajay Mohan Goel, J., dismissed a petition seeking bail as the petitioner was a second-time offender and the possibility of him indulging in such similar offences could not be ruled out.  

In the present matter, the petitioner sought bail considering the fact that only 200 grams of charas was recovered from him, which formed the basis of the FIR. Here, the petitioners through counsel, Sheetal Vyas, submitted that since the amount in possession was less, therefore he may be released on bail. They placed reliance on Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 382. Although, Dinesh Thakur, AAG with Amit Kumar Dhumal, DAG, counsels for the respondents, vehemently objected the grant of bail as the petitioner already stood convicted under the provisions of NDPS Act for possession of charas weighing 107 kgs. Also, the sentence imposed upon him was of more than 10 years.

The Court considering the facts and the pieces of evidence was of the view that taking into consideration the history of the petitioner, the possibility that he may again indulge in such similar offences cannot be ruled out. And held the reliance so placed on the case to be “totally misplaced” as the case was very different from the facts at hand, where in the present case the petitioner already stood convicted. Hence the petition stood dismissed.[Chande Ram v. State of HP, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 859, decided on 24-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Anand Pathak, J. directed release of the applicant on bail with sureties in the instant application filed under Section 439 of CrPC. 

V.K. Saxena, counsel for the applicant submitted that it was the second application on behalf of the applicant, where it was requested to release him on bail, as the applicant was in the custody since 3 months. The contention narrated by the counsel was, that an FIR was lodged against the applicant for offence under Sections 27, 29, 50 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the charges were for the entry in a restricted area of Sanctuary and causing destruction. It was further stated by the counsel that the applicant was only the driver of the vehicle which was seized by the police officers and neither the owner nor his accomplices were arrested for the said offences. It was pleaded by the petitioner that due to his detention in the judicial custody, his family was facing financial distress;  he further submitted that any other stringent conditions may be imposed over him but his confinement was not justified on the part of his family. 

Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application because the offence had been committed against the motherland.

The Court considered the tender age of the applicant and observed that he had no criminal antecedents and granted bail to the applicant with conditions and sureties. [Vivek v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1069, decided on 30-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. granted regular bail on the ground that the case of the commission of offence with pre-meditation was yet to be proved during trial.

A bail application was filed with respect to the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The facts of the case were that a complaint was lodged by the complainant against her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law for harassing the complainant for about two months. It was further submitted that the complainant had gone back to her parent’s house after the altercation with her husband, but thereafter husband came to the parents’ place and started a quarrel, the mother tried to pacify but the petitioner stabbed the complainant’s mother with a knife, who succumbed to the injuries and died. Thus, the case was registered and the accused was arrested.

Tejas N., counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner himself had suffered injuries in altercation according to the statement of the witness. It was further submitted that the context in which altercation took place the reaction of the petitioner was in the nature of reaction to the grave and sudden provocation. Thus, prayed for the grant of bail.

The Court opined that the Sessions Judge had dismissed the application of the petitioner stating that prima facie materials were made out against the petitioner with regard to commission of offence but the court held that petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground that context of the altercation including injuries was, matter to be explained and proved in trial. Hence, application for the bail was allowed.[Syed Raheem v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 565, decided on 03-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. dismissed bail application of a person accused of illegal transportation of cannabis, holding that the application was devoid of merits.

The instant bail application was moved by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing him on bail, in a case registered for offence under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The prosecution’s case was that around 5.650 kg of charas, enwrapped in polythene packets, was being carried by certain persons in a vehicle; when the same was seized by the police during patrolling check. While the petitioner managed to escape that day, he was arrested two months days later. The sample of recovered stuff was sent for scientific analysis and upon analysis, it was found to be a sample of cannabis.

Petitioner’s averments were that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He was neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. Whereas, Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the prosecution, submitted that petitioner was involved in transporting a huge quantity of charas and if he is enlarged on bail, he would repeat the offence. Thus, his bail application may be dismissed.

The Court observed that “at this stage, considering the quantity of charas, i.e., 5.650 kgs, the fact that trial is likely to conclude, there is likelihood that in case the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, may flee or indulge in such activities again”. In view thereof, it was opined that it was not a fit case for exercising judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail.[Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 551, decided on 29-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. dismissed the petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The facts of the case were that petitioner and the complainant had a quarrel with respect to the headphone. The petitioner, one night, assaulted the victim with a knife and inflicted several injuries upon him. It was the nearby public that rescued the victim from the fight and he was rushed to the hospital. The complainant received the phone call regarding the incident and rushed to the hospital and found the injured victim in ICU. The complaint was thus registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Srinivasa C., Advocate for the petitioner submitted that complaint was an exaggerated version of the simple altercation. It was further submitted that the accused and victim were relatives and were very much interested in living in a coordinated harmony. Therefore, prayed for the grant of the bail.

Divakar Maddur, High Court Government pleader argued that accused and victim were known to each other prior to the incident but the statement of the victim, who had attributed direct overt act against the petitioner as the one who stabbed him and caused several injuries with the help of the knife. It was further submitted that as the investigation was in process, the enlargement of the bail was not warranted and thus prayed for the dismissal of the present application.

The High Court after submission by the parties held that statement of the victim, that too, stated to have given in the hospital in the presence of the doctor to the police officer cannot be discarded at the stage of the investigation. Moreover, the investigation is said to be in progress. As such apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the enlargement of the accused on the relief of the bail may hamper the case cannot be ignored and hence rejected the present petition.[Mohd. Waseem v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 3215 of 2019, decided on 23-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Ajay Tewari, J., passed an order to release the petitioner on regular bail on the ground that no evidence was made against the petitioner except for the statement of the cohort.

The application was filed under Section 439 CrPC for regular bail in the case registered under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

The facts of the case were that information was received by the police regarding the purchase of the 4 kilograms of heroine and links with Pakistani smugglers who had called for heavy quantity of opium and had kept the same beyond the barbed wires. After a few days of investigation, Kuldeep Singh who possessed consignment was arrested and on his statement about the present petitioner being cohort, petitioner was arrested. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that investigation was still pending and police were yet to collect evidence about the petitioner. Hence, the present application to invoke the special power of the High Court to grant regular bail was made.

Amarjit Kaur Khurana, DAG, Punjab submitted that no recovery of the heroine was made from the petitioner and that no evidence had been gathered. It was also submitted that the petitioner was in the custody for nine months, for which a custody certificate was placed on record.

Considering the submission, the High Court granted the bail on the ground that the petitioner had already served nine months in the custody and the trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future.[Gurchait Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 564, decided on 16-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Siddharth Mridul, J. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 assailing an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant’s bail application was rejected.

The appellant was standing trial under Sections 18, 18-B and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. M.S. Khan and Prashant Prakash, Advocates representing the appellant asserted that he was entitled to be released on bail ex debito justitiae. Per contra, Ravi Nayak, Assistant Public Prosecutor appeared for the State.

At the outset, the High Court observed that relevant provision of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, in relation to grant of bail to an accused person is enunciated as a non-obstante clause, which clearly and unequivocally postulates: “if the Court is of the opinion that, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against such person are prima facie true, he shall not be released on bail.” Further, the provision stipulates that the restrictions contained in Section 437 (1) CrPC, are also applicable.

The order on charge led the Court to an inescapable conclusion that of a prima facie involvement of the appellant in grave and serious offences which attract a sentence that may extend to imprisonment for life upon conviction. Furthermore, a perusal of the report under Section 173 CrPC filed against the appellant and the circumstance that he was declared a ‘proclaimed offender’ in the present proceedings, as well as, his propensity to furnish fabricated documents, suffice in our view to believe that, he represents a flight risk.

In such view of the matter, no interference with the impugned order was warranted, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. [Syed Mohd. Zishan Ali v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8396, decided on 29-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Daya Chaudhary, J., under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of regular bail where FIR was registered under Sections 324, 323, 342, 148, 149, 302 and 365 of Penal Code.

It was submitted by the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the case where he was not involved in the commission of the alleged offence. The complainant and the eyewitnesses were examined and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Even the post mortem report did not suggest anything which could prove the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged commission of offence. Arguments were advanced stating that the deceased died after he was found in a good condition and discharged from hospital. The fact cannot be ignored that co-petitioner was already released on bail. Whereas respondent contended that petitioner was the main accused thus, should not be released on bail.

High Court was of the view that the bail should be granted and this petition was allowed as the death of the deceased cannot be said to be a result of injuries received by petitioner. [Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 415, dated 22-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: This application was addressed by Ajit Singh, J. which was filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding along with the charge sheet arising out of the case filed under Sections 452, 354-K(a), 323, 504, 506 for first applicant and under Ss. 452, 354-K(a), 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3(1)(I)B SC/ST Act for second applicant and cognizance order pending before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi.

Applicant contended before the Court that no offence against the applicants was disclosed and that this case was instituted with the malafide intention for harassing the applicants for which applicant had also provided documents and statements supporting his contention.

High Court was of the view that from the materials on record and facts of the case it cannot be said that no offence was made out against the applicants. But since the facts presented are disputed questions of fact, which the Court could not adjudicate under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, Court refused to quash the entire proceeding of the case and it was directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered. [Sunil Kori v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 2065, Order dated 23-04-2019]