Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court opined that since the petition was filed after 01-07-2024, it ought to have been filed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Delhi High Court said that the allegations against Amandeep Singh Dhall were serious in nature and their impact on society at large must be considered as a factor for adjudicating bail.
The Delhi High Court says that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be permitted to be free by merely contending that the accounts, though in his name, were being managed by the co-accused.
Court said evidence shows a consensual relationship between two adults where promise to marry may not have been motivating factor for sexual relationship.
The Delhi High Court says that efforts must be taken to teach children about critical thinking skills to assess the credibility of online contacts and safeguard their personal information.
Kerala High Court remarked that Kerala has a grim history of fireworks-related accidents
Calcutta High Court emphasised on the importance of sensitization and awareness programs to prevent marriages involving minors or adults who have not attained the legal age of marriage.
“The bail applications should be disposed of within two weeks and applications for anticipatory bail are to be disposed of within six weeks”.
While considering the complexities introduced by dating apps like Bumble, the court balanced the need for bail with the imperative of upholding the integrity of the trial process.
“The concerned Investigating Agency cannot expect anyone who is an accused, to sing in a tune which is music to their ears, more so, whence such an accused, is well and truly protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.”
“This case and order will serve as a reminder that general public shall not believe unscrupulous persons and give them money, even if they are assured that they will get some work done from within the judicial system by such payment.”
“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.