Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Section 78 BNS punished a person who followed a woman and contacted her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by her or monitored her internet use, email or other form of electronic communication.”
“The fundamental right to have access to courts of law is enabled largely through advocates. If advocates are attacked for drafting complaints, the rule of law will suffer.”
Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the accused, the Court viewed that custodial interrogation was necessary.
The Court directed accused to handover his all electronic gadgets like mobile, laptop etc. to the investigating agency along with the password of his all social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, whatsapp etc. for the investigation.
“A reading of the complaint does not attract the provisions of Section 75 of BNS or Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Furthermore, as the other offences are bailable, I am inclined to grant bail to the accused with certain conditions.”
It is a strange paradox that the applicant claims he is area in charge of “Aman Committee”, but has not joined investigation of offences which have defeated the very purpose and aim of such committee
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., expressed that, personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only
Bombay High Court: Sarang V. Kotwal, J., on noting that the husband and wife cannot live together and there were constant quarrels
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., granted bail to a person accused of kidnapping a minor, which eventually in view of the
Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., rejected a bail application which had been filed by accused petitioner for granting pre arrest bail
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Singh Thakur, J., dismissed the petition and approved the prayer for custodial interrogation. The facts of the
Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J., allowed pre-arrest bail to the applicant accused of raping a women whom he allegedly met on
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., held that, that once an offence takes place from the a mobile phone number,
Kerala High Court: N. Anil Kumar, J. allowed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Kerala High Court: Raja Vijajayaraghavan, J. rejected an application for pre-arrest bail on the ground that victim was a minor girl. An
Kerala High Court: The Bench of Sunil Thomas, J. allowed the bail application filed by a member of a political party involved
Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan J., decided a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Code