Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Sensitised to the plight of unsuspecting individuals who fall victim to deceptive mobile applications, the Courts have the responsibility to address the grievances of those who, in their pursuit of technology, end up being defrauded of their hard-earned money.”
“This lethargic attitude of the prosecution is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo.”
The festive month of November revolved around some of the major matters before the Supreme Court. The Top Court gave guidelines for streamlining adoption process and expeditious disposal of criminal cases. The roundup covers the top stories for the month along with the segment of Never Reported Judgments and Know Thy Judge.
The Court considered the grant of bail on account of all the relevant factors, gravity and nature of the offence, the extent of punishment, if enlarged on bail, may abscond or tamper with the evidence and witnesses, etc.
Considering the huge quantity of contraband seized and progress of trial, the Court refused to grant bail.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Court also considered the fact that the accused is a permanent resident of his locality, having his family members and ancestral property, hence, there is no scope of absconding if the accused person is granted bail.
FIRs were registered on the complaints of homebuyers, who have alleged that Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited, Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited, and their directors/officials, including the applicant have committed offences of cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust in respect of various residential projects in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
Supreme Court said that the recovered contraband item having weight less than the stipulated commercial quantity, the restriction on grant of bail under Section 37 of NDPS Act does not apply in this case
“POCSO was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. Nowadays often it has become a tool for their exploitation”
The month of October was focused on the long term battle on the same- sex marriage. Take a round of all the major judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court during this month along with some never reported judgments and write ups on the Supreme Court Judges through the know-thy Judge segment.
The court at the stage of bail has to only see the prima facie case. Even in the case of MCOCA, the court is not required to arrive at a positive finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence because in such a case it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant in case the bail is granted.
Supreme Court found the case fit for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination but added that the power to recall witnesses under S.311 CrPC ought to be exercised sparingly and mere hostility by a witness, per se, would not be sufficient grounds to infer misuse of concession of bail.
Earlier in a writ petition concerning the issue of continuation of V. Senthil Balaji as a Cabinet Minister of the State consequent to his arrest, the Court left it to Chief Minister MK Stalin to decide about the continuance of Senthil Balaji (who is in judicial custody) as a Minister without Portfolio
The Court stated that the objections raised by respondent that if petitioner was released on bail then he may abscond to evade criminal justice, are untenable because the petitioner is a Secretary for SDPI political party.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had refused to grant bail to the accused considering the seriousness of the offence.
“It is observed that in Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the word “shall” means “it is mandatory for the accused to furnish bail bond with surety”.”
The Court did not express anything on the merits of the case and released the accused considering the period in custody and reasonable time for conclusion of Trial.
“This Court must record its concerned about the manner, in which, the mandatory provisions of Section 33(7) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are being violated, with impunity.”
The accused had spent nearly 6 years and 2 months in jail, which is more than half the period of punishment for the offences he was charged with.