Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The liberty granted to the accused through bail orders remained illusory as he continued to languish in jail, and the separate bail bonds liable to be executed by the sureties required them to travel to various Magistrate Courts all over the State.”
“The Detaining Authority ought to have examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of further indulgence in identical activities which is the very basis of the preventive detention order.”
“Considering that the accused is a young man, who is at fag end of his teen age, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application and enlarge the accused on bail.”
“If the accused indulged in any of the act to cause any harm to victim or her family, this order will be recalled immediately.”
Supreme Court noted that nothing is stated by the detaining authority as to why the conditions are not sufficient to prevent the detenu from engaging in further activities of smuggling; which was the specific ground on which the conditions were imposed while granting bail.
“Right to life does not mean mere right to exist but to live with dignity. Such a right cannot be and ought not be curtailed on the ground that petitioner father’s is an accused in pending cases.”
In this case, the President of Jai Shriram Urban Credit Co-operative Society systematically siphoned off approximately Rs. 79 crores, with the aid of other office-bearers and the co-accused.
The unusual condition, which was imposed and later, was not modified, clearly shows that the Trial Court travelled beyond its powers and imposed such conditions, which was normally not required when granting bail.
Bail was granted to the accused on 03-10-2023, however, the bail bond was not accepted by the Trial Court for a delay of three days in complying with the conditions of bail.
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
Supreme Court pointed towards the parameters/circumstances to be considered while granting or refusing bail as laid in a series of judgments.
Delhi High Court observed that in absence of any cogent, supervening circumstances necessitating cancellation of bail of the respondent/accused, the Court cannot merely cancel the bail so granted.
Supreme Court: In an interesting case the Vacation Bench comprising Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari, JJ., disapproved a strange bail condition imposed