Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Upon comparing the allegations against the appellant with those against other co-accused who were granted bail by Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court concluded that there was “no major distinction” between their respective roles.
In the instant case, the petitioner was in jail for almost 4 years, but not a single witness was examined.
“The most invaluable gift that the people of India gave unto themselves through the Constitution was the vision of a casteless society founded upon the principle of substantive equality.”
“The contention that the marriage could not take place due to non-matching of kundalis appears inconsistent with his own conduct and representations made over the years. If the issue of kundali matching was indeed of such determinative importance for the applicant and his family, the same should have been resolved at the threshold before entering into physical relations.”
“Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is deemed to be “heart and soul” of the Constitution as it empowers any citizen to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.”
“Custodial interrogation of the accused/applicant is necessary in order to unearth if more children in similar fashion have been trafficked by the accused/applicant for being used in commission of crimes.”
“The proper course is to proceed with the appeal on merits, ensuring representation, while securing presence only in accordance with law upon dismissal or as otherwise required.”
The Court explained that when weighing an application on parity, it is ‘position’ of the accused in crime, i.e., his role, that is the clincher.