Trace Your Case

Author: admin

Categories
Law Of Bail

Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab 1977 (4) SCC 291

ISSUE:

Whether the practice of denying bail to those sentenced to life imprisonment should be departed from when appeals are significantly delayed?

Whether prolonged incarceration during pending appeals infringes upon the principles of justice and fairness?

Whether a prima facie case for appeal and extended jail time without a timely hearing warrant bail?

RULE:

Judicial practices must not prevail if they result in injustice; prolonged delays in hearing appeals warrant a reconsideration of bail, especially in cases with prima facie merit.

In cases where special leave to appeal is granted, and the accused has already served substantial jail time, bail should be granted unless cogent reasons suggest otherwise.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Judgement And Sentencing

Rattiram & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2013 (3) AJR 18

ISSUE:

Whether the judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Division Bench of the High Court justified?

Whether all the accused persons had participated in the assault or not?

RULE:

Setting aside a conviction or direction for retrial merely on the ground of irregularity of committal proceedings is impermissible under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Law Of Bail

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 312

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting anticipatory bail to the appellant?

RULE:

Arrest of an accused should be the last option and restricted to exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violations of human rights.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides to every person right to life and personal liberty.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Framing of Charge and Elements of Fair Trial

State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao, (1993) 2 SCC 567

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the application filed by the accused to declare that the charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge were null and void as they were obtained by fraud?

RULE:

Fraud is a deliberate act or omission to mislead another person to gain undue advantage. The presence of fraud in any proceeding or transaction results in its nullity. Thus, to establish fraud, strict pleading and proof is required.

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to suspend, remit, or revise any sentence or order passed by an inferior criminal court.

Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to call and investigate the record of any proceeding before any subordinate court.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Framing of Charge and Elements of Fair Trial

Virendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2007) 9 SCC 211

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court was justified in charging the accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code?

RULE:

Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Court to convict an accused for a minor offence even though the charge has been framed for a major offence.

Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Law Of Bail Uncategorized

The State v. Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 SC 253

ISSUE:

Whether High Court was right in granting bail to respondent when he was served with serious charged under S.3 of Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923?

Whether the evidence indicate satisfaction upon respondent’s case under the Indian Official Secrets Act., 1923?

RULE:

Bail must consider the gravity of offense, potential punishments of the offense and the role of accused to deal with larger public.

S.3 of Indian Official Secrets Act deals with national security and interests of state carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

Courts while considering an offence to be bailable must see the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of offense to be tampered, status of one accused with co-accused and interests of justice with public security.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Investigation Uncategorized

M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court can direct the arrest of accused persons during an ongoing investigation, even when the police have not deemed it necessary to arrest them?

Whether rejection of anticipatory bail applications is a ground for directing immediate arrest?

RULE:

The discretion to arrest lies with the police based on the specifics of each situation.

Mere rejection of anticipatory bail does not mandate immediate arrest, and any directives should respect the autonomy of the investigative process.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Investigation Uncategorized

Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 1 SCC 10

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court is empowered to enhance the sentence given by a trial court in a suo motu manner?

Whether the recovery of dead body is required for conviction of accused in the case of murder?

RULE:

High Courts may enhance sentences of accused as empowered under Section 386(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”), after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the accused.

The recovery of the body of the deceased is not a condition precedent for conviction of the accused for murder.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Investigation Uncategorized

D. Venkatasubramaniam and Other v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari (2009) 10 SCC 488

ISSUE:

Whether High Courts can direct the manner of investigation by an investigating agency under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”)?

RULE:

The High Court cannot interfere with the investigation of crime under Section 482 of the Code by directing the police to investigate in accordance with its views.

The only grounds for exercising the High Courts’ powers under Section 482 of the Code are – to secure the ends of justice, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here