Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court stated that the accused had not only cheated the public at large but also attempted to disrespect the noble legal profession.
In Lakhimpur Kheri violence, four farmers, one journalist, the driver of one of the vehicles, and two others, were killed. Nearly ten farmers suffered major and minor injuries
“It was imperative on the part of the Investigating Officer that investigation of an offence such as dowry-death maintains a high level of accuracy and candidness.”
“The Parliament, after considering a spate of reports highlighting the flourishing human organ trade in India and the consequential exploitation of the economically vulnerable segments of the society through organ removal, and illegal transplants, for prohibiting the unethical practice, enacted the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994”
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 opined that though the jail authorities had claimed that adequate treatment will be provided to the accused, but considering his condition, he deserves the benefit of granting bail.
“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.”
“Glorification of an accused is fundamentally detrimental to the interests of society and undermines the integrity of the justice dispensation system.”
“The well-known principle of “Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty,” gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.”
“It is against the Constitutional mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution which does not provide for religious conversion, it only provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.“
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.
The Delhi High Court stated that a prima facie case of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was made against K. Kavitha based on the material placed on record.
The Court stated that overall conspectus of the case based on broad probabilities does not specifically or indirectly assign the petitioner to be involved in the acquisition and possession as well as concealment of 8.86 acres of land at Shanti Nagar connected to the “proceeds of crime”.
‘The D.G.P., U.P., Lucknow is directed to file affidavit enclosing the circulars related to the accountability of the Investigating Officer, Supervising Officer, Monitoring Officer and other higher officials, by the next date of listing’
The Court opined that materials available on records do not suggest that there are reasonable grounds to believe that respondent is not guilty of committing the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Court noted that the appellants had participated in spreading hatred against the State and in spreading anti-national agenda through various means of propaganda including use of electronic media by creating WhatsApp groups and circulating messages detrimental to the interest of the nation.
There is a distinction between “Law and Order” and “Public Order”, i.e., offences that target specific individuals fall under the category of “Law and Order” and it is only when the criminal activities of an individual adversely affect the public at large that their conduct is deemed to disturb “Public Order”.
“A striking balance is necessary while considering the matter of bail of a juvenile from the angle of best interest of the child, demands of justice to the victim and the concern of the society at large.”
“In the absence of an opinion of the experts it is difficult for this Court to conclude as to whether it is a case for grant of interim bail on the medical grounds. The Court cannot assume the role of an expert and make assessment of its own as regard the medical condition of the petitioner based on medical records placed on the Court file.”
If any accused chooses to avail legal remedy and that too in terms of specific judicial pronouncement, he cannot be blamed for causing delay in the matter. Since he continued to be in detention, he was, even otherwise, not going to dig out any advantage at all, by exploring such other possible legal avenues.