Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Issuance of summons in a criminal case is a very serious matter, since even mere issuance of summons by criminal court may stigmatise a person, who may not be required to be summonsed at all.”
Amit Malviya had filed a criminal defamation complaint before the Patiala House Court against Santanu Sinha, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) member, regarding Facebook posts made by him.
The Court highlighted the egregious misuse of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and observed that there are huge number of cases, where very well-off tenants enjoying financial prosperity, unjustly occupy premises for decades on-end, paying pittance for rent. While in the process, their landlords are forced into impecunious and desperate circumstances.
In the present case seeking regular bail by the accused, the charge-sheet comprising about 10,000 pages was filed over 1 year ago citing 49 prosecution witnesses, but charges are yet to be framed. Therefore, the Court stated that it is obvious that trial will take a long time to conclude.
While this court does not fault the Trial Court for attempting to proceed with the trial expeditiously, but, denying to the petitioner (‘accused’) the right to cross-examine the Head Constable on an issue which is critical to his defence appears to have been a disproportionate sense of expedition.
“The record shows that the petitioner (‘accused’) has committed heinous offences while he was on bail in other cases; and he has been convicted in the offences committed while on bail. When there is a long list of serious criminal involvements, the apprehension that the accused suffers from recidivism cannot be dismissed as imaginary.”
The Trial Court was directed to return the passport surrendered by the accused within 2 weeks of submission of application for the same.
‘The law is clear that custody of an accused can be sought even after filing of a chargesheet or complaint.’
The word ‘he’ in Section 3 of the POCSO Act could not be given a restrictive meaning to say that it referred only to a ‘male’.
The Court opined that since the petition was filed after 01-07-2024, it ought to have been filed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.