Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the present case, the Government of India directed the NIA to investigate a FIR filed by West Bengal Police under multiple laws. The State argued that, even without investigation or supporting material, the order itself claimed the FIR allegations fall under Section 15(1)(a) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
“On 16-04-2022, 5 accused persons came on three two-wheelers, and inflicted grievous injuries on Sreenivasan and killed him by hacking his head and other parts of his body with choppers.”
The Court stated that the recovery of incriminating material recovered from the mobile phone of the appellant showing pro-ISIS material showed that the appellant is deeply influenced with the philosophy and ideology of the ISIS.
The Court held that NIA could investigate non-scheduled offence, or a person involved in a non-scheduled offence, provided there is a connection with the scheduled offence. This nexus between any other offence and the Scheduled Offence is of critical importance and must be present to enable the NIA to investigate any other offence committed by an accused in connection with the Scheduled Offence.
The Court took serious note of distortions in the chargesheet vis-a-vis attributing certain statements to the protected witness, which he did not make, stating that NIA owes an explanation, and the investigating machinery must be fair.
Supreme Court said that while we are holding that the requirement of an authorization or an empowerment is mandatory for conveying a complaint, it being at the conclusion of investigation, would not preclude the investigating agency from complying with it thereafter.
The Court noted that cognizance of the offence was not taken by the Trial Court as stipulated by Section 2(d) of the MCOCA, therefore, the accused persons could not be prosecuted on the charges of S. 3 MCOCA.
“We are conscious of the legal position that we should be we are slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted by the High Court, however it is equally well settled that if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside.”
Calcutta High Court held that “any further delay in complying with the solemn directions would be absolutely contemptuous.”
Supreme Court also reiterated that the grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC.
Madras High Court: In an appeal against the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the appellant’s bail, the division
Madras High Court: In a case related to an appeal filed to set aside the judgment and enlarge the appellant
Madras High Court: In a case related to an appeal filed for the cancellation of an order of dismissing the bail application
Supreme Court: Adopting a humanitarian approach, the 3-judges Bench comprising Uday Umesh Lalit, Aniruddha Bose, and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ., had granted permanent
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ has granted bail to Thwaha Fasal and Allan Shuaib, booked
Najeeb, who along with some other members of Popular Front of India (PFI) had chopped¬off the professor’s right palm, has been in jail for much more than five years and there are 276 witnesses left to be examined.
S.O. 4590(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 15 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of