Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to inquire into the circumstances in which the investigating officer sought permission to search and arrest an accused despite the subsistence of interim protection from arrest in an anticipatory bail matter.
Perusing the recommendations made by the committee for two separate wings of police for investigation and law and order maintenance, the Court issued directions to increase the police cadre strength and establish well-equipped investigation labs in the state of Rajasthan for fair and expeditious investigation as delay violates the right to fair investigation and speedy trial.
“Although this Court recognizes that police personnel also have the right of private defense and may use force in appropriate circumstances, it is well settled that where death occurs or grievous injuries are caused to the accused, the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court must be strictly followed.”
“The allegations in the present case are not merely of a single isolated incident but reveal troublesome conduct of the accused spanning over several months, involving physical intimidation and digital harassment.”
“If such data is not preserved, there is likelihood that the same may get lost and may not be available to the petitioner in support of his defense.”
“This is unconscionable and unpardonable. It appears that, in a disciplined police force, the police personnel themselves are not following the discipline and are not following the mandatory directions issued by the office of the Director General of Police.”
Kerala High Court said that when a question of law or a point on merit is raised by the accused in a bail application, it is the duty of the bail court to decide that point. But that decision will be a prima facie finding at the bail application stage.
Walayar rape death case was a seven-year-old case relating to the rape and alleged murder of two minor sisters at Walayar
‘The D.G.P., U.P., Lucknow is directed to file affidavit enclosing the circulars related to the accountability of the Investigating Officer, Supervising Officer, Monitoring Officer and other higher officials, by the next date of listing’
The Court held that no previous sanction as contemplated under S. 197 CrPC would be necessary for investigating and filing final report for offences under S. 509 IPC and S. 3 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act, except for the offences punishable under S. 506 IPC.
The Court criticised the investigating officer and the treating doctor for not informing the survivor’s family about the pregnancy and the option for termination, considering the survivor’s minor status and health risks.
The Telangana High Court noted that multiple issues could have driven Rohith Vemula to commit suicide and further, it could also not be established that the actions of the petitioners had driven Rohith Vemula to commit suicide.
In the present case, there is not only undue, unwarranted and unexplained delay for over 9 to 10 years in presenting the charge-sheet or complaint, but also, the investigation is also faulty.
“It does not appeal to logic and probability that persons in the mob of Muslim Community will raise slogan of “Jai Shree Ram” or they will beat a Muslim person, while acting as part of a mob in a communal riot between Hindu and Muslim.”
Supreme Court directed the accused to report to the local Police Station twice in a month, and directed his passport to be deposited with the Investigating Officer /with the Court concerned
On determination of age, Bombay High Court expressed that “When there is still margin of four years, it cannot be said that the girl was not a “child” as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside conviction due to laches in investigation in NDPS case of recovery of 145 Kg poppy husk.
“During the said period of trial, there is no occasion for the applicant to keep him languishing behind the bars, as it would serve no purpose especially in view of the aforesaid and as it is a trite law that no person is presumed guilty until proven otherwise.”
While granting benefit of doubt to accused, the Supreme Court stated that “Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out.”
Bombay High Court remarked that they have come across at least three such cases in last three weeks wherein the statement of the prosecutrix has been totally disbelieved in the grave and a serious offence under Section 376 IPC by not following the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in its catena of decisions. It is the second case in this week wherein Police did not adhere to the basic principles of investigation.