Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The High Court held that the custody period, that is around 1 year and 7 months, had not progressed to such a stage as would warrant interference merely on the ground of the period of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner.
“The petitioner is grievously bereft of the invaluable opportunity to fulfill her natural and fundamental role as a mother the nurturing, upbringing, and intimate bonding with her child.”
The Court referred to Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559, wherein it was explained that no lexical dexterity nor precedential profusion is needed to come to the realistic conclusion that he who is under the control of the court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439, CrPC.
The Rajasthan High Court had dismissed the petitioners’ second bail application on 12-07-2023.
Supreme Court: On being appraised of high number of pending bail applications in 10-14 years old cases, the Division Bench of Sanjay
Delhi High Court: Najmi Waziri, J., observed that “Arrest and incarceration destroys a person and collaterally affects many other innocent relatives. Subsequent release
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary, JJ., has requested the Registrar (Listing) through the Registrar
Bombay High Court: A Full Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and R.K. Deshpande and Sunil B. Shukre, JJ., answered the question referred
Patna High Court: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. disposed of the revision petition saying that the Court did not find any ground to condone
