“Exemplary costs need to be imposed so that no one could dare to take the Courts for a ride.”
The High Court also issued directions for effective implementation of POCSO Act and amendments introduced in the CrPC in 2018 vis-à-vis notifying the informants or victims about filing of regular and anticipatory bail applications and other connected issues.
Supreme Court noted that the bail application was rejected as the accused did not appear before the Trial Court.
“Since the territorial jurisdiction of the present case is in Chennai only, therefore Chennai being one of the jurisdictional area under the notification issued by the Central Government, which comes under the jurisdiction of the PDSJ, Chennai, naturally the said case has to be tried in the said Court”
If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges, there would be conflicting orders, and the litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the credibility of the Court and judicial discipline requires that such matter must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available, for orders.
The Court said that it prima facie seems that the petitioner was merely acting as a trader and was not in the conscious possession of the contraband hidden in the consignment.
Delhi High Court noted that the Duty Magistrate has the power to decide the application under Section 437 CrPC
During a certain phase when the alleged forceful sexual intercourse was committed, the student was a minor.
Kerala High Court found the instant bail application to be infructuous, since it was filed under Section 438 of CrPC, and the petitioner was already arrested.
Allahabad High Court said that any statement of a rape victim is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman, and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit.
The Manipur High Court held that where a person is taken into custody by an order of Magistrate, then such order cannot be challenged by Writ of Habeas Corpus as the detention cannot be termed as illegal.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court commented that victim's silence for such a long time would dent her credibility, and such a dent would not justify any further pre-trial incarceration. Thus, the Court allowed bail application, subject to certain conditions.
The Supreme Court stated that the Allahabad High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, the relationship between the parties and the prima facie evidence on record with reference to common intention as well as antecedents of the respondent.
None of the statements of the applicant led to any discovery of a ‘fact' in terms of Section 27 of the IEA.
The petitioner had undergone incarceration for more than 4 months and completion of trial would take some time, thus, the Court enlarged him on bail
Kerala High Court: In a conflict between the manner and forum for filing an application for bail when offences under
Allahabad High Court: In a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) filed by the
Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed by the applicants for quashing the proceedings and setting aside the bail
Delhi High Court: In an application filed by Aakash Choudhary (‘petitioner’) seeking anticipatory bail, as FIR was registered against him
“Criminal courts in general with the trial court in particular are the guardian angels of liberty. Liberty, as embedded in the Code,