Whether the order of Bombay High Court denying bail to the appellants is justified and in accordance with the law? If not, whether the accused and co-accused should be granted bail?
For an offense of abetting suicide, there must exist a direct or indirect incitement to the commission of a crime; action of the accused of instigating or doing an act facilitating the commission of the crime.
Whether the Bail should have been granted to the accused?
The Court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations. The Court should exercise a greater degree of care in enlarging on bail an accused who is charged with the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act when it relates to military matters.
Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 should be limited to a fixed period to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail?
Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court?
Section 437 and 438 of the CrPC.
Whether this is a case under section 302 or under the second part of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code?
The Code is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities. Substantial compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial do not vitiate trial unless the accused can
show substantial prejudice.
STATE OF BIHAR V. RAMESH SINGH State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 ISSUE: Tests for discharging an accused-Presumption of innocence.Difference between case for conviction or case for proceeding further. RULE: Section 226, 277 and 228 of the CrPC. FACTS: At 3.00 A.M. on the 26th of November 1973 Smt. Tara Devi,...
Whether there are no sufficient grounds in framing of the charge under section 227 of the CrPc, 1973?
Whether respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 have done conspiracy against the appellant and has committed an offence under section 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the prevention of corruption act read along with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and acted illegally?
The law in question in this case is section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 227 talks about discharge which says that “ if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted herewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and will record its reasons.”
Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused?
Section 227 was incorporated in the Code with a view to save the accused from prolonged harassment when the evidential materials gathered after investigation fall short of minimum legal requirements.
If the evidence even if fully accepted cannot show that the accused committed the offence, the accused deserves to be discharged.
Whether a magistrate can direct the police to submit a chargesheet, when the police have after the investigation of the commission of a cognizable have submitted a final report under section 173 of CrPC, 1973?
Section 173 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Whether a Magistrate can after accepting the final report where no offences are made, acquit the accused and drop the proceedings without issuing notice to the first informant or to the injured or in this case the relatives of the deceased?
If the opinion in the report under Section 173 by the police states that no offence is seemed to have been committed, the Magistrate has 3 options:
1. He may accept the report and drop the proceeding.
2. He may disagree with the report and taking a view that there is sufficient grounds
to proceed further, may take cognizance of the offence and issue process.
3. He may direct further investigation to be made by the police under section 156(3).
Whether Magistrate has the power to order a further investigation after filing of charge sheet by police and if yes, up to what stage of criminal proceedings?
Whether the Magistrate is authorized under Section 173(8) to order a further investigation after a police report has been forwarded to him?
It would be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding.