Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
It is alleged that the local MLA-the petitioner and his supporters visited Hospital to show their sympathy to the victim and her family member and after taking name, address and photograph of victim, it was sent to media and other organization from the petitioner’s mobile number.
The Court stated that mere fact that at present hospitalisation was not required and the applicant can be treated on outpatient basis did not disentitle the applicant from grant of medical bail.
The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is sine qua non for the offence under Section 153-A1 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 stated that a person who tried to commit suicide, enjoyed a statutory presumption about mental stress and having regard to such presumption, is excluded from being put on trial.
Prima-facie case for wrongfully restraining the team of doctors and restraining them from doing their official duties was made out and both these offences were punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC. However, despite disclosing commission of cognizable offences, the police did not register an FIR.
The Court noted that Section 90 of IPC does not define the term “consent”, but the law does not see “consent derived from a fear of injury and misconception of fact” as consent.
The Court stated that admittedly, the death is homicidal, and the doctor also found that the cause of death is injury, which was inflicted upon the deceased persons. Therefore, the ocular evidence corroborates with the medical evidence.
The physical contact made by the accused with the girls coupled with the words uttered by him could only lead to one inference that the touch was with sexual intent.
The Court referred to Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 quoting Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer that “to be poor, in this land of Daridranayan, is no crime, and to recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is too flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his wilful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means”.
The Court noted that apart from one WhatsApp message, which was not incriminating, nothing else was found from the raid at the petitioner house. Still the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 2½ years.
“Though an attempt was made to portray the incidents that led to the registration of the crime as one having transnational ramifications based upon the affidavit of the State Government filed in the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the circumstances do not persuade this Court to rely on the said averment to direct a CBI investigation”
The Court stated that allowing the proceedings to continue will amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The unusual condition, which was imposed and later, was not modified, clearly shows that the Trial Court travelled beyond its powers and imposed such conditions, which was normally not required when granting bail.
The Court stated that this is not a case of ransom because the appellants had not called the complainant’s wife to pay ransom, and it is possible that they were planning to receive the rest of the amount of the vehicle from ‘X’.
The Court referred to Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770, wherein it was held that the charge under MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the syndicate commits organised crime either individually or jointly.
The High Court quashed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board remanding the accused minor to an Observation Home.
The Court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt shall be given to the appellants and therefore partly allowed both the appeals, by acquitting them under Section 302 of IPC, and releasing the incarcerated appellants sentenced under Section 307 of IPC, for having served the ordered sentence period.
The Court emphasised on the settled position that when two views are possible to a case, then the one that is favours the accused must be adopted.
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.
A same act may not amount to cheating and criminal breach of trust at the same time as for cheating, dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction, whereas, for criminal breach of trust, there must exist a relationship between the parties, whereby one party entrusts another with the property as per law, albeit dishonest intention comes later.