Trace Your Case

Categories
Law Of Bail

Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCALE 165

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court, while granting bail, failed to adequately consider the criminal antecedents of the accused and the gravity of the offense, thus making the order perverse and unsustainable?

Whether the High Court erred in prioritizing the period of custody over societal concerns and the nature of the alleged crime in granting bail?

Whether the grant of bail was justified despite the accused being a history-sheeter with numerous pending cases, including serious offenses?

RULE:

The discretion to grant bail must consider the gravity of the offense, criminal antecedents, societal interest, and evidence on record. A perverse or unreasoned order is liable to be set aside.

Individual liberty is subordinate to societal concerns in cases of heinous crimes or when public safety is at risk.

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

Dalbir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 5 SCC 334

ISSUE:

Whether the accused can be convicted under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) despite no specific charge being framed under that section?

Whether the conduct of the accused constituted cruelty under Section 498-A IPC based on evidence of harassment and dowry demands?

Whether procedural irregularities, like absence of a charge under Section 306 IPC, invalidate the conviction if no prejudice is caused to the accused?

RULE:

Conviction without a specific charge: A conviction under Section 306 IPC is valid even without a specific charge if the accused had notice of the allegations, a fair opportunity to defend, and no failure of justice occurred.

Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC: Persistent harassment and dowry-related demands leading to mental or physical distress amount to cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, as evidenced by credible testimony and corroborative documents.

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

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565

ISSUE:

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is subject to rigid limitations or dependent on the discretion of the courts based on case-specific facts?

Whether the imposition of blanket restrictions on anticipatory bail violates the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Whether considerations under Section 437 apply to anticipatory bail applications under Section 438?

RULE:

Judicial Discretion in Anticipatory Bail: Courts have wide discretion to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, guided by the facts and circumstances of each case, without being restricted by rigid, predetermined rules or conditions.

Balancing Liberty and Investigation: The provision must be interpreted to protect individual liberty while ensuring it does not unduly hinder legitimate police investigations, with conditions imposed as necessary to maintain this balance.

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

Kahan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 983

ISSUE:

Whether the appellants were guilty of the murder of Moti Ram and Balak Ram under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution?

Whether the framing of alternative charges caused prejudice to the appellants and vitiated the trial?

Whether the plea of self-defence raised by the appellants was credible and sustainable in light of the evidence?

RULE:

Procedural Defects and Prejudice: Procedural defects, such as errors in framing charges, do not invalidate a trial unless actual prejudice to the accused is demonstrated, as justice is not to be frustrated by technicalities.

Self-Defence Evaluation: A plea of self-defence is valid only when supported by credible, consistent evidence, and it will be rejected if found contradictory or disproved by the prosecution's case.

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