Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Where a confessional statement is otherwise excluded or is inadmissible by virtue of Sections 25 or 26 of the Evidence Act, there can be no question of such confessional statements being made admissible against another co-accused with the help of Section 30 of the Evidence Act.”
“A criminal court, while considering an application for a grant of NOC for a passport renewal, should only advert itself to the question as to whether the accused, if allowed to travel abroad, would be available to face the trial and no other factor should influence the decision.”
“Probation is a kind of non-custodial sentence which gives the convict an opportunity to reform himself, while abiding certain conditions imposed by the Court, instead of directing him to undergo substantive sentences.”
“The State agencies, only show their defiance to the very objective of introducing provisions of Furlough/Parole and have no respect or care for the prisoners and their mental and physical health.”
“In criminal jurisprudence, the right of speedy trial is recognised as a fundamental right and just because the accused had participated in the trial at one stage, at other stage he does not lose a right to ask for bail.”
“When question of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India is involved, it is the duty of all officers concerned, to be sensitive before passing of the externment order.”
The accused is a prime suspect in a murder case, as he had previously harassed the deceased. However, the Court opined that he cannot be convicted based on the feelings of the deceased’s parents, when not a shred of evidence can be found which connects the accused with the crime.
The accused, who was a bus driver, was obligated to sound the horn, wait a reasonable period, or seek assistance from the conductor before moving the bus. Failure to adopt such precautions constituted negligence as a public bus driver.
In the case at hand, Dharam Singh Chhoker, the former Haryana MLA was accused of siphoning off home buyer’s money and on ED’s application, six non-bailable warrants were issued against him, but he could not be arrested.
The case was pending before the Magistrate for almost 10 years, but during that entire period, the petitioner did not make any effort to examine the allottee as a witness. This clearly showed lack of due diligence by the petitioner during the trial before the Magistrate.
“The prosecution had examined only 27 witnesses by 11-8-2025 out of 170 witnesses cited by it. Thus, the possibility of concluding of the trial in the near future appeared remote while the accused had already served more than a decade in prison.”
It remains undisputed on record that the complaint filed by Respondent 2 has disclosed commission of non-cognizable offence by the TV Today Network.
In the present case, the appellant took out a sharp-edged weapon i.e. knife and pointing the same at the complainant, asked him to handover whatever he was carrying and threating to kill him in case he didn’t comply. The knife, was not used to actually hurt the complainant.
“Making statements such as, the wife does not wear proper clothes or was not able to cook food properly, cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment as per the explanations given in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.”
The Court emphasised that the manner of the commission of offence, its location and the post-incident conduct of the accused raised serious concerns regarding possibility of obstruction of justice if the bail is granted to the applicant.
The present case is of year 2005, the judgment was delivered on 29-5-2006 and now it has been more than 19 years which has passed. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of the accused to remit or remand the matter to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the accused concerned under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The husband’s friend tried to convince him that if his demands are not fulfilled then he shall not cohabit with his wife and shall send her to her paternal home.
The Court observed that even though weapons are recovered from one of the accused, it is not the prosecution’s case that those weapons were used for any terrorist activity and/or toppling the Government.
In the present case, allegations are by way of written words before the police and before the judicial authorities, thus, such imputation will amount to defamation when the case does not fall within either of the ten exceptions to Section 499.
“This is the third round of litigation. The officers dealing with the matter despite repeated orders of this Court have shown a reprehensible attitude just to stick to their opinion. It shows that they have scant regard for the orders of Constitutional Courts.”