Can 4.5 years in custody earn bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA? Rajasthan High Court on Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case
A bail court does not weigh evidence or defences such as language of disclosure statements, held the Division Bench.
A bail court does not weigh evidence or defences such as language of disclosure statements, held the Division Bench.
The High Court noted that to attract Section 306 IPC, suicide must be a direct consequence of instigation by the accused.
The accused had allegedly contravened Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 112(2) and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949.
The Court stated that considering that Chandrashekhar is a sitting MLA and the alleged offences were allegedly committed by his party workers, the argument that there might be a larger conspiracy could not be ruled out.
In the present case, an FIR was registered against MLA Zahid Beg and his wife, Seema Beg, when a minor gir, allegedly their house help, was found dead in their home.
“Considering that the accused is a young man, who is at fag end of his teen age, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application and enlarge the accused on bail.”
“He was a sitting MLA and due to his conviction in the present matter, he has been disqualified. Therefore, on one hand, his conviction deprived his constituency from legitimate representation and on the other hand, it also restrained him to represent his constituency.”
The State could not place any material on record based on which the Court could infer that the Chairman prima-facie appeared to have committed the aforesaid offences.
“The law requires that for an allegation of malafide to be sustained, it must be pleaded with specificity and supported by material facts. In the absence of mens rea, or a demonstrable element of ill-intention, such a prayer cannot be entertained.”
The Court urged the Resident Doctors to call-off their strike and request their fellow doctors to rejoin their duties and the same is accepted by the doctors representing JARD.
The Court held that the petition was effectively a review in disguise, which is barred under Section 362 CrPC and cannot be entertained.
“OMR answer sheets are electronically evaluated for the purpose of ensuring minimum human intervention, so as to ensure secrecy and credibility of the entire examination process.”
Rajasthan High Court held that contractual engagement does not confer a vested right of employment to workers engaged through placement agencies.
Rajasthan High Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners to demonstrate the incorrectness of the disputed answers.
Justice Sameer Jain of the Rajasthan High Court, Chairman of the SAFEMA and PMLA Appellate Tribunal Justice M.N. Bhandari, Rajasthan’s Additional Solicitor General Mr. RD Rastogi, Chief Editor of SCC Mr. Surendra Malik, joined Justice Rastogi in releasing EBC’s ‘Money Laundering: Prevention, Law & Practice’ by Abhijeet Sharma.