BAIL CASE LAWS.docx

Search ResultsTotal No. of Records found: 420 2001 SCCL.COM 200(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2001) Smt. Akhtari Bi Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided on 3/22/2001. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi. Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 21 -- fundamental right -- speedy justice -- prolonged delay in disposal of trials and appeals in criminal cases for no fault of accused confers right to apply for BAIL -- if appeals not disposed of within 5 years, for no fault of the convicts, such convicts may be released on BAIL on conditions deemed fit and proper by Court. 2001 SCCL.COM 206(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2001) Prahlad Singh Bhati Appellant Vs. N.C.T., Delhi & Anr. Respondents, decided on 3/23/2001. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 437 -- BAIL -grant of -- in cases where offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life which is triable exclusively by a court of Sessions, the Magistrate may, in his wisdom, refrain to exercise the powers of granting the BAIL and refer the accused to approach the higher courts unless he is fully satisfied that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 2001 SCCL.COM 227(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001) Uday Mohanlal Acharya Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 3/29/2001. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agarwal. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 167(2) -proviso -- Indian Penal Code -- Sections 406 and 420 -- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 -- offences under -- BAIL -- when can an accused be said to have availed of his indefeasible right for being released on BAIL under the Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., if a challan is not filed within the period stipulated thereunder? -- held the accused availed of his right on 17th August, 2000 by filing an application for being released on BAIL and offering therein to furnish the BAIL in question -- by majority, appeal allowed. 2000 SCCL.COM 609(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 741743 of 2000 etc. Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 271, 273, 283-315, 317-342, 343-372, 373-402 of 2000) Abdul Karim etc. etc. Appellants Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors etc.etc. Respondents, decided on 11/7/2000. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 321 -- applications under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking consent of court to withdraw TADA charges to facilitate ultimately the release of accused persons from judicial justody so as to meet Veerappan's demands -- withdrawal from prosecution of any person -- the Special Public Prosecutor must be satisfied, on consideration of all relevant material, that his withdrawal from the prosecution is in the public interest and it will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause injustice -- requirement of law not satisfied hence consent under Section 321 cannot be granted -- order under Section 321 passed by the designated Court at Chennai in the matter of Radio Venkatesan set aside -- appeals allowed. 2000 SCCL.COM 484(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2000 ETC.) M.V.A.L. Quamar Appellant Vs. Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd. & Ors. Respondents, decided on 8/17/2000. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee. Subject Index: Maintainability -- of execution proceedings before High Court of Andhra Pradesh as an executing court -- for enforcing of foreign decree passed by the English Admiralty Court -- by attachment and sale of vessel in question. 2001 SCCL.COM 273(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 507510 of 2001) Muraleedharan Appellant Vs. State of Kerala Respondent, decided on 4/18/2001. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 438 -- anticipatory BAIL -- Kerala Abkari Act -- Section 8 -- offence under -- provision in pari materia with Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- offence such for which legislature has imposed stringent restrictions even in regard to grant of regular BAIL -- held, order of Sessions Judge, blessing the appellant with pre-arrest BAIL order on the conclusion that the investigating agency would not be able to collect any material to connect the appellant with the crime, misuse of discretion conferred u/s.438, Cr.P.C. -- appeals dismissed. 2001 SCCL.COM 325(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2001 with) Puran Appellant with Shekhar and Another Appellant Vs. Rambilas & Another Respondents and State of Maharashtra & Another Respondents, decided on 5/3/2001. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 439 -- BAIL -cancellation of -- powers in respect of. 2001 SCCL.COM 450(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (Crl.) No. 1105 of 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2000) Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath Petitioner/Appellant Vs. State of Assam Respondent, decided on 5/10/2001. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan. Subject Index: Death penalty -- question of sentence -- review sought -- on the ground that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence -- held petitioner proved to be major at the time of commission of the offence -- sentence of death cannot be reopened -- review petition dismissed however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to get the benefit under Sections 432, 433 & 433A, Cr.P.C. 2001 SCCL.COM 488(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 1998) State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Bharat Chaganlal Reghani and others Respondents, decided on 7/11/2001. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi. Subject Index: Contract killing -- Indian Penal Code -- Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 120B, 23, 114 -- Arms Act -- Section 3 r/w Sections 25(1-B)(a), Section 5 r/w Section 27 -- TADA -- Sections 3(2) (I), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5 and 6 -- offences under -- conviction and sentence under. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Hon'ble Mr.COM 642(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.2001 SCCL. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -. Justice Y. Mehta and Ors. It is a . Justice M. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.grant of BAIL to respondent -. 306 and 307 --. Sabharwal and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.a person who has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with life imprisonment shall not be released on BAIL unless there is no reasonable ground for believing that the person has committed the offence and/or there are special reasons to do so -.COM 672(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. The State of Maharashtra Respondent.B. decided on 8/31/2001. 2001 SCCL. 1985 -.BAIL -. 880 of 2001) Ram Prakash Pandey Appellant Vs. Sections 6 and 7 confer on that court wide powers. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.Section 437 -.accused ignoring the provision of Section 37 of the Act -.Section 9 --. Justice Brijesh Kumar. 2001 SCCL. Variava. Kajad Respondent.Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act.N. State of U. Sethi. Justice S.K. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr.order of High Court granting BAIL cannot be sustained.interpretation of --. Appellants Vs. Bharucha. 1992 --. Justice S. 319320 of 1996) Harshad S. Justice K.held the impugned order having been passed in violation of the provisions of the Act by ignoring the mandatory requirements of section 37 and the conditions governing the grant of BAIL under the code of Criminal Procedure and is thus not sustainable. No special reasons for granting BAIL have been indicated by the High Court -. 1973 --.P. decided on 9/6/2001.T. Justice R.P.COM 668(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 907 Of 2001) State of Madhya Pradesh Appellant Vs. and another Respondents. decided on 9/6/2001.section 6.Section 37 -.at this stage it could not be said that there is reasonable ground for believing that 2nd Respondent has not committed the offence.P.successive BAIL applications are permissible under changed circumstances but without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law -.whether the pardon provision as contained i Sections 306 and 307 of the Code apply or not to the proceedings before the Special Court under the Act --held the Special Court established under the Act is a Court of exclusive jurisdiction. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure. remission of sentence as per notification -. Santosh Hegde. 2001 SCCL. 1951 -. Hon’ble Mr.COM 706(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 405. Justice Ruma Pal.K. Justice Umesh C. State of Punjab and others Respondents. Jayalalitha's Case] Constitution of India -Article 164(1) r/w (4) -. by reason of her convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences of imprisonment of not less than two years. 433-435/2000.Sections 326. (Crl. Justice S. 324 r/w 34 -conviction under -.Representation of People Act.offences under -conviction -.Section 8 -. 325.) Nos.Prevention of Corruption Act. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. 421. 13(1)(d) -Indian Penal Code -. Hon’ble Mr. Kapur Petitioner Vs.Section 13(1)(c). Bharucha. 2001 SCCL.R. State of Tamil Nadu and another Respondents. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code -. 2001 SCCL.held while applying the period of remission granted by the Government under any remission notification the period during which an accused person was on BAIL cannot be taken into account.held on the date on which the second respondent was sworn in as Chief Minister she was disqualified. Justice Brijesh Kumar. Sabharwal.) Nos. Justice Y.whether a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence and whose conviction has not been suspended pending appeal can be sworn in and can continue to function as the Chief Minister of a State? -. J. 245246 of 2000 (With W.B. 270. 249. 57 and 63-64 of 2001)) Narinderjit Singh Sahni and another Petitioners Vs. Pattanaik. decided on 9/11/2001.P. Justice G.Sections 120B and 409 -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. 1988 -. for becoming a member of the legislature under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act -held a person who is convicted for a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than two years cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State under Article 164(1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such.court of original criminal jurisdiction and has all the powers of such a court under the Code including those of Sections 306 to 308 --. 918919 of 2001) Joginder Singh Appellant Vs.COM 684(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. Hon’ble Mrs. 242 of 2001) B. Justice N. decided on 9/21/2001.P.COM 774(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl. Union of . Hon’ble Mr.appeals dismissed. Subject Index: [Ms. the procedure established by law must strictly be followed and must not be departed from.maintainability of the petition under Article 32 and secondly. -. Karnal should not continue since the case relating to the same incident is pending in the Sessions Court at Delhi and the same will . and in conformity with the provisions thereof --imperative that before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty. so that the accused will not complain of undue harassment on account of protraction of their cases and the persons deceived who have filed complaints. Justice S.) of Delhi Respondent.P. 167(2).136 -.relieving the petitioners from unnecessary disgrace and harassment would not arise --. Subject Index: Constitution of India -.India and others Respondents. to the disadvantage of the person affected --.COM 787(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.Section 167(2) -. 2001 SCCL.also High Court not satisfied that there is any merit in the application -. B) Constitution of India --. 1073 of 2001) Sukhjinder Singh Appellant Vs.maintainability of the petition --petitioners not entitled to any relief by reason of insufficiency of available material on record as to infraction of Article 21. decided on 10/12/2001. The object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty by the Executive save in accordance with law. Cr. decided on 10/18/2001.right of an accused to have speedy trial is now recognised as a right under Article 21 --. Patil. Justice Umesh C.Article 32 --.petition filed for release of appelant on BAIL u/s.Article 32 petition under Article 32 for infraction of Article 21 --. Justice G. Justice D. Subject Index: A) Constitution of India --. Pattanaik.it would be a misplaced sympathy of the Court on such white-collared accused persons whose acts of commission and omission has ruined a vast majority of poor citizens of this country --.P.N. State (N. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.C.rejected by Court of Magistrate and ADJ -.Criminal Procedure Code -. Hon’ble Mr. will be satisfied with the early conclusions of the trial. Mohapatra and Hon’ble Mr.BAIL -.C. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.open to appellant to file application for regular BAIL -.held no inclination to order release of appellant on BAIL in exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. Justice Shivaraj V. Variava.Article 136 -. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr.the Central Government to evolve certain formula or procedure.B.court did not agree with the proposition that an accused being involved in large number of criminal cases in different parts of the country.T.relief under --. if is not able to be released from custody even on getting BAIL orders in some cases.further criminal case instituted in the Court of the ACJM. itself would tantamount to violation of the right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.Criminal Procedure Code --section 438 --. an order in the nature of an anticipatory BAIL ought to be made available to the petitioners herein by reason of the deprivation of the liberty without there being any sanction of law --petitioners inside the prison bars --. not on the merits of the case. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. 489C. the matters are proceeded by the Court and by the APP and tried to be disposed of as if the prosecution has not led any evidence -. State of Punjab and Anr.Sections 309 and 311 -examination of witnesses -.continue in accordance with law. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Phukan. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.the presence of investigating officer at the time of trial is must. Hon’ble Mr. State of Bihar & others Respondents. in any way. Justice M.Indian Penal Code -. 2001 SCCL. Mrs. latches or mistakes by not examining material witnesses. 1218 of 2001) Shailendra Kumar Appellant Vs. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present.T. decided on 12/4/2001. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -.offences under -held accused would be entitled to BAIL. Justice Arijit Pasayat. Justice B. 1253 of 2001) Harjeet Singh @ Seeta Appellant Vs.N.in a murder trial it is sordid and repulsive matter that without informing the police station officer-in-charge.Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. 489B. decided on 11/28/2001. 1227 of 2001) State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -.COM 884(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice K. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ Ayesha Khan Respondent.Sections 489A. 1999 -.Section 167(2) -.B. it is the duty of the Court to take appropriate action including issuance of BAILable/non-bailable warrants as the case may be -. If there is failure on part of any witness to remain present. Respondents. Subject Index: Judicial discipline -. 2001 SCCL.N. Agarwal. but on account of the default of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within 90 days from the date of the first remand of the respondent.COM 891(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.N.COM 876(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.B. 120B and 420 -.if there is any negligence. Shah. impaired. the matter ought . Justice M. 2001 SCCL. Thomas and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. the Courts function to render just decision by examining such witnesses at any stage is not. decided on 12/6/2001.BAIL --for cancellation of the BAIL on the ground of misrepresentation or mis-statement. Shah and Hon’ble Mr.BAIL -. Sabharwal. 2002 SCCL. Subject Index: Customs Act -. Hon’ble Mr. Order for BAIL bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained -. decided on 2/22/2002. Nos. 536. Variava.Article 21 -.Section 110 -. Justice Umesh C.to have been placed before the same Judge -. 1407 of 2002) Om Shanker Biyani Appellant Vs. Justi.A. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 539. 381 and 382 of 2002) Ram Govind Upadhyay Appellant Vs. Port of Calcutta & Ors. 2002 SCCL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju. 537. Justice N. Board of Trustees. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. 745 of 2002) . Hon’ble Mrs. Subject Index: Bail -.COM 254(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.Right to Speedy Trial -. Lahoti. 2002 SCCL.Major Port Trusts Act -Sections 58 and 59 -. Subject Index: Constitution of India -.COM 116(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. Hon’ble Mr. however.held the proposition that the BAILee. decided on 3/18/2002. Antulay's case upheld and reaffirmed.open to the other Judge of the High Court to sit in appeal against the order passed by coordinate bench of the same Court. Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri. calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.R.K. 541 & 542 of 2000)) P. is not entitled to charge rent for storage of goods can never apply to a case where the lien is exercised for nonpayment of rent or storage charges. 2002 SCCL. Justice Y. Sudarshan Singh & Ors. Justice R.Grant of BAIL though being a discretionary order .considerations of grant of BAIL.Section 171 -.Indian Contract Act -. Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Hon’ble Mr.COM 184(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.COM 448(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Santosh Hegde. Respondents. 540. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. 538. A.N. who exercises a lien. State of Karnataka Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Respondents. Ramachandra Rao Appellant Vs.whether principles which apply to a lien under Section 171 would also apply to the statutory lien under Section 59 -.but. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. 535 of 2000 (with Crl.C. decided on 4/16/2002. Varadharaj Appellant Vs. decided on 11/20/2002. Respondents. 2002 SCCL. howsoever brief it may . Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — section 120-B — offence under -Code of Criminal Procedure — section 438 — anticipatory BAIL — whether the anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants could the sustained or not — held the judicial discretion exercised in granting anticipatory BAIL is neither perverse nor erroneous — based on relevant consideration supported by reasons — the High Court committed a manifest and serious error in passing the impugned orders setting aside the anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants — appeals allowed. the fact that the court specifically noted in the BAIL order that the Public Prosecutor had no objection for grant of BAIL therefore the court was inclined to grant BAIL to the appellant -.held placing of the application for BAIL and the order made thereon are not always mandatory and such requirement would depend upon the facts of each case -. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Subject Index: Detention -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.this is a vital fact. 10871088 of 2002) Mahant Chand Nath Yogi & Anr. if it is to be held that such placement of the BAIL application and the order passed thereon is not mandatory in every case then in the facts and circumstances of this case whether such application and orders made thereon ought to have been placed before the detaining authority? -.COM 630(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.in the present case. Justice Bisheshwar Prasad Singh.COM 585(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. decided on 8/19/2002. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.prayer for BAIL rejected by Sessions Court -.C.ought to have been noticed by the detaining authority -. Patil. 2002 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. is it necessary for the detaining authority to take into consideration any BAIL application filed by the detenu and any order passed by a criminal court on the said application as a matter of rule. State of Haryana Respondent.detention order quashed -. Respondents.) Ram Pratap Yadav Appellant Vs. non-consideration of this fact vitiates the order of detention -. Justice N. Justice Brijesh Kumar.appeal allowed.when a person is detained under a Detention Act. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr.previous conviction for a heinous offence -.the order of the High Court. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Subject Index: Bail -. 1209 of 2002 ETC. Mitra Sen Yadav and anr.granted by High Court -. decided on 10/24/2002. Appellants Vs.granting of -. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. 2002 SCCL. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr.Police Officer disregarding the BAIL order arrested a person because case against him is of alleged assault on one of a police official -. decided on 12/5/2002. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.since the Sessions trial in which the accused was enlarged on BAIL is proceeding with expedition and major part of evidence has been recorded.G. 1312 of 2002) Mansab Ali Appellant Vs. Justice Y. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.B.COM 716(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice P. 441 of 1993) Bijay Kumar Mahanty Appellant Vs. Appellants Vs. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -. P. Respondents. Balakrishnan. Subject Index: Contempt of Courts Act. Justice M.judgment disapproved -. 2002 SCCL.regarding punishment mere sentence of fine would not meet the ends of justice -. Venkatarama Raddi. 1971 -.Section 169 -. Justice K.C. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. 2002 SCCL.order of BAIL set aside. Irsan and Anr. It is difficult to perceive that such a step would amount to interference with the administration of justice -observations are neither justified nor called for in the case. Jadu @ Ram Chandra Sahoo Respondent.if at the stage of grant or refusal of anticipatory BAIL certain aspects of the case are consideration but later if the investigation agency files a report under Section 169 Cr. State of Gujarat Respondent.be. decided on 12/13/2002. 1284 of 2002) Satish Sharma and Anr.held the High Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of contempt of court -further it is not a fit case where the apology tendered at this belated stage ought to be accepted -. Justice S. Dharmadhikari. should make it appear that the High Court while forming opinion on prayer for BAIL was conscious of the reasons for rejection of prayer for BAIL as assigned by the Session Court -. decided on 12/13/2002.appeal dismissed.the case against the appellant is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt -.COM 680(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.COM 714(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice D.complainant challenging order granting BAIL to the respondent-accused who is alleged to have committed the offence of murder during the BAIL period -. Subject Index: Bail -.M. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.K. Supreme Court refrained from considering the prayer of complainant for . Sabharwal and Hon’ble Mr. 1985 — Sections 8(c)/21/25/27/27-A and 29 — 41 kg.COM 84(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.. Justice B./2003 @ SLP (Crl. 5574/2002)(with Criminal Appeal No.... of 2003 (arising out of SLP (Crl. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -. Justice H.. decided on 12/20/2002. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.COM 753(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos..cancellation of BAIL -. heroin recovered from a room which was in possession of the accused under a leave and licence agreement — BAIL granted by the Bombay High Court — looking to all the facts and circumstances and the huge recovery.) No./2003 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 1352 of 2002)) M. 2002 SCCL. Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.) No.. Sema.. decided on 1/17/2003... Dhote Appellant with J. Abraham and another Appellants with A. 5711/2002)(with Criminal Appeal No. Ghashiram Kanhyalal Solanki and another Respondents...K. 1348-1349/2002.. Salve and another Appellants Vs.C... nature of the offence. 13461247 of 2002 (with CRL. 5352 of 2002)(with Criminal Appeal No. 1350-1351/2002. Nos.P. 2003 SCCL.. appellants were not arrested -held a person whose petition for grant of anticipatory BAIL has been rejected may or may not be arrested by the investigating officer depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.there was no justification for the High Court to direct the State to arrest the appellants against whom the first information report was lodged..K..) No.. 5708/2002)(with Criminal Appeal . Justice N... Justice Brijesh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. . the High Court has not exercised its discretion prudently and in accordance with law — BAIL cancelled — accused to surrender forthwith. the facts disclosed in the course of investigation and other relevant considerations -. 69 of 2003 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) 4011 of 2002)) Narcotics Control Bureau Appellant Vs. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr.despite application for anticipatory BAIL being rejected. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents. 2003 SCCL../2003 @ SLP (Crl.COM 150(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. A.F.complaint lodged by Provident Commissioner against Directors of MAPL -. Singh.left to the judicious discretion of the learned Sessions Judge to continue the BAIL or cancel the same after hearing the counsel for the prosecution and the accused. the background of the accused. as it amounted to unjustified interference in the investigation of the case -appeals allowed.. Section 3(1)(i) -.K.according to the State they were in possession of incriminating documents -appellants stated that they were only attending the meeting of All India Minority Education Board -. Subject Index: A) BAIL -./2003 @ SLP (Crl.the State has not been able to show such adverse incidents of the appellants which may disentitle them to grant BAIL -. decided on 2/3/2003. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Mr.No. Union of India and others Respondents.confessional statement -TADA Act. 16/2003)) Attaurrehman Abdulrehman Kureshi Petitioner Vs.the appellants deserve to be enlarged on BAIL. 215 of 2003 & 1361/2002)) Jameel Ahmed and another etc. P-126 which in our opinion is sufficient to establish the guilt of A-5 -.Explosive Substances Act -.) No.. Subject Index: TADA Act -.Section 15 -. Sema. 13 and 15 -.K.COM 433(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl.the prosecution has failed to produce any corroborative evidence in addition to the confessional statement of A-2 therefore by the standard adopted by us for relying on the confession of A-2 to base a conviction on the co-accused. (with Crl.P. State of Gujarat Respondent. 2003 SCCL.K. Singh. Sema. 1308 of 2002 etc. 1967 -.detention order -- . Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.A. we find it difficult to uphold the conviction of A-6.COM 421(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.. State of Rajasthan Respondent. Appellants Vs. Sabharwal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y. B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.on the facts and circumstances of the case. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.granted in terms of the impugned order of High Court -. decided on 4/30/2003.appeal -.held contention that a confessional statement of an accused made under Section 15 the TADA Act can be used only to corroborate other substantive evidence produced by the prosecution cannot be accepted -. Justice Y. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.Sections 5 and 6 -conviction and sentence under -...appellants prosecuted -.Sections 3.) No.Sections 3(3) and 6(1) -. 100 of 2002) Kadhar Naina Ushman Petitioner Vs. Justice B. Justice H.the prosecution has produced material which could be treated as evidence generally corroborating Ex. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr.. 10. Subject Index: COFEPOSA -. decided on 3/4/2003.K. Nos. 2003 SCCL.their grievance is in respect of some of the conditions and stipulation of automatic cancellation of BAIL without any formal order of the Court -. the stipulation in the impugned order of automatic cancellation of the BAIL of the appellants is not called for.Indian Penal Code -Section 120B -. Justice N. 1987 -. Justice H. He has. Metubha Diwansingh Solanki and others Respondents. during the course of hearing.COM 533(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. B) Contempt of Courts Act. rather than to continue with this matter and send him again to jail. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.A.C. 426 of 2002 (in I. a little late undoubtedly -.contempt petition disposed of. . 7919 of 2001)) In the matter of Anil Panjwani Vs. decided on 7/24/2003.held no efforts were made for nearly 3 1/2 months i. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. unfounded and reckless allegations contained in his affidavits filed during the course of proceedings -contemnor has felt genuinely apologetic. 885887 of 2003) Ghanchi Rubina Salimbhai Appellant Vs. and certainly not a statutory rule that a contemnor cannot be heard unless the contempt is purged -. 1971 -.A.in the light of the facts and circumstances enumerated above and particularly the fact that initially he was arrested and sent to jail in connection with this contempt matter where he was lodged for four days before being released on BAIL.it is well settled that delay in execution of the order of detention would not by itself invalidate the order of detention and would not show that the detaining authority is not serious in detaining the detenu -. 6.it is no rule of law.delay in execution of order of detention -. It is also not the case of the respondents that any application was filed before the Magistrate either praying for the cancellation of the BAIL or praying that the petitioner shall not be granted exemption from personal appearance since he is evading arrest pursuant to the order of detention -. he is. Justice Brijesh Kumar. Justice R.request allowed -.COM 450(Case/Appeal No: Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (C) No. in C.Section 14 -. posed and reposed. 2002 to apprehend the petitioner. and said so with folded hands regretting all that has happened leading to initiation of proceedings of contempt.order of detention quashed. 1971 -. These factors. decided on 5/5/2003. 2003 SCCL.charge under -scurrilous attack against an eminent brother judge of ours in this Court made through irresponsible. No. though repentant. 2003 SCCL. Subject Index: A) Contempt of Courts Act.e. weigh in favour of accepting the request allowing him to withdraw the objectionable affidavits. . between 23rd October.it would all depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case and the nature of contempt under enquiry which would enable the Court exercising its discretion either way. No. 2001 and 7th February. in our view.also pleaded for permission to withdraw such of the two affidavits filed by him containing the objectionable averments made therein -. expressed and re-expressed his full faith in this Court and tendered apology without any reservation -. under the second count. under the first count and 5 years and a fine of Rs. bearing in mind the observations made in this order. and a fine of Rs.the impugned order of the High Court should be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration. 436. Mathur. decided on 8/27/2003.COM 645(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 149. 2003 SCCL.accused charged with offences under Sections 302. 427.I.C. 1987 -. of Delhi) Respondent. and a fine of Rs.under the second count -. Ravi accused was further convicted under Section 397 IPC and Section 5 of TADA and was sentenced to 7 years R. He shall surrender forthwith to undergo the sentences imposed upon him. State (N. 500/. the accused were to undergo 3 months R.enlarging the accused on BAIL by the High Court without assigning any reason -. 147.the manner in which the crime was committed and the manner in which the appellant escaped after jumping from the first floor of the house clearly shows that the three witnesses got full opportunity to see and identify him. is affirmed.T.appellant and co-accused Ravi and Rakesh @ Ravi were convicted under Sections 392 /120-B IPC and Section 120-B IPC and were sentenced to 7 years R. there is no reason at all for not placing reliance upon their testimony -. 397. 500/.since the trial court has assigned reasons for refusing BAIL which includes availability of material to establish prima facie case against the respondent-accused.the conviction and sentence of the appellant. we think it would have been more appropriate if the High Court could have at least briefly indicated the reasons which it though entitled the respondent-accused to BAIL -.I. 500/. Justice G.I.P. Subject Index: Bail -. Justice S.I.in default of payment of fine under each count. . Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and the learned Designated Court rightly convicted and sentenced him -.Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.Section 19 -. Singh. In these circumstances. 188 and 120-B IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act -. 395. and looking to the gravity of the offence as also the apprehension of the complainant as to the possibility of interference by the accused with the investigation and threat to the prosecution witnesses in the event of they being enlarged on BAIL. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. The appellant is on BAIL. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr. as recorded by the learned Designated Court. Subject Index: Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. Justice N. P. 749 of 1999) Munna Appellant Vs. and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently -.under the first count and 4 years R. Justice B. His appeal is accordingly allowed to the indicated extent.the High Court has analysed the evidence in great detail.conviction altered -.P. this appeal has to be allowed and the matter be remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration after hearing both the parties -. which in no way affected credibility of prosecution version -.Section 302 -.only one blow was given in the dark night. Appellants Vs. 1123 of 2003) Union of India and Anr. we feel and clause ‘thirdly’ of Section 300 cannot be applied. The blow was said to have been delivered with a stick and in a pitch dark night of time in the forest surroundings of the area where it occurred. 1860 -. 1962 -. 2003 SCCL. His appeal is dismissed.COM 666(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. So far as appellant Rocky Saldanha is concerned. Subject Index: India Penal Code. Though it cannot be said as a rule of universal application that whenever one below is given application of Section 302 IPC will be ruled out and that even a single blow delivered with a heavy or dangerous weapon on a vital part of the body would make the offence a murder.2003 SCCL. State of Karnataka Respondent.custodial sentence of eight years would meet ends of justice. justified in holding that Augustine Saldanha and Rocky Saldanha were responsible for the death and injury to the deceased and PW1 respectively -. It could not reasonably be stated with any certainty that the accused chose that vital part of the body to inflict the injury and that the blow was aimed without any of such specific intention could have landed on the head due to so many other circumstances. Justice Arijit Pasayat. decided on 8/26/2003.application seeking anticipatory BAIL -procedure adopted by the High Court was not correct -.Section 104 -. are directed to surrender to custody to serve remainder of their sentences. Yusuf Razak Dhanani and Ors. in view of the detailed analysis made by the High Court. we do not find any scope for interference with his conviction or the sentence imposed. Subject Index: Customs Act.appeal allowed. . Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. than due to any positive intention also -.Code of Criminal Procedure -. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Section 438 -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. therefore. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. A. and concluded that Trial Court’s conclusions were fallacious and based on magnification of trifle and unimportant materials. The accused persons who are on BAIL. Respondents.COM 693(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. No. 854 of 1996 (with Crl.while deciding the application for grant of anticipatory BAIL the investigating agency concerned has not been given reasonable time to file its objections. Justice N. On the peculiar facts found in the present case.the High Court was. Singh. 1734 of 1996)) Augustine Saldanha Appellant Vs. decided on 9/9/2003. rejected by the High Court -.2. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh and others Respondents. Justice S.application for grant of anticipatory BAIL -. therefore. Singh. That is only a restriction in regard to blanket anticipatory BAIL for an unspecified period -. decided on 9/8/2003. 498A and 406 -. decided on 10/8/2003.order under challenge -. Justice N.45 a.C.no restriction on the power of the courts empowered to grant anticipatory BAIL under Section 438 of the Crl.P.held the respondents did not chose to apply for BAIL before the Special Court for offences under POTA and consequently there was no order of refusal of BAIL for offences under the said Act.the duration of anticipation BAIL should be normally limited till the trial court has the necessary material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the material available before it. Justice B.COM 696(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.m. The order of the High Court is clearly without jurisdiction as under the scheme of the Act the accused can only file an appeal against an order of BAIL passed by the Special Court before a Division Bench of the High Court and.P.2002 when the Sabarmati Express was stopped near Godhra Railway Station and a coach was set on fire resulting in death of 59 persons injuries to 48 years -.Dowry Prohibition Act -Sections 3/4 -. Mathur. Subject Index: A) Constitution of India -.appeal treated as proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution -.P. B) POTA -.appeals arise on a certificate granted by the Gujarat High Court under Article 134A read with Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution in the matter of grant of BAIL to the respondents -. they should first invoke the jurisdiction of the said Court which shall dispose of the matter expeditiously without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court and any party feeling aggrieved thereby will have a right to prefer an appeal before the High Court in accordance with Section 34 of POTA.Section 34 -.accused of -. The learned Single Judge exercising powers under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr. Justice G.under POTA -. the order under challenge cannot be sustained. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr.Indian Penal Code. 2003 SCCL. -. 1860 -.judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh does not support the extreme argument .C.since the respondents have not approached the Special Court for grant of BAIL to them for offences under POTA. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr.BAIL -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.Sections 504.2003 SCCL.Section 438 -.granting of -.P.commission of offences under POTA -BAIL granted by High Court on applications -.a ghastly incident took place at about 7. 888891 of 2003) State of Gujarat Appellant Vs. State of Bihar and another Respondents. 1250 of 2003) Bharat Chaudhary and another Appellants Vs. on 27. granted them BAIL. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -.COM 791(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.anticipatory BAIL granted -. Abdul Kaffar Appellant Vs. Ltd.Sections 7. Justice S.conviction -. 2003 SCCL. Singh. Army Welfare Housing Organisation Appellant Vs. 119121 of 1997 (With Crl. State of Kerala Respondent.COM 830(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. the only . Consequently.B.D. are denuded of their power under the said Section where either the cognizance is taken by the concerned court or charge sheet is filed before the appropriate Court. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. 2 must be set aside. 13(1) (d) read with Sections 201 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code -.Held while upholding Claim No. Therefore. 2003 SCCL. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1 of the award are of the opinion that the award of the arbitrations in relation to Claim No.the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. The same is set aside.COM 856(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.acquittal under Section 477-A -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. decided on 12/18/2003.State that the courts specified in Section 438 of the Crl. decided on 10/8/2003. Prabhu Nath Jha and others Respondents. Sumangal Services Pvt.if really the appellant had issued a receipt to PW-1 on receiving the money. 314-316 of 1997)) Ramanand Yadav Appellant Vs. 1988 -.. Sinha. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. 1725 of 1997) M. Subject Index: Arbitration Act. 2003 SCCL.P.Sections 302 read with Section 34 -. decided on 10/31/2003. Respondents are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.COM 1033(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.P.charge under -. Justice Arijit Pasayat. Hon’ble Mr.C.addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. As they are on BAIL. no interest thereupon shall be payable. then the raiding party would have noticed the same because they came immediately after the money was received. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Justice B. they shall surrender forthwith to suffer remainder of the sentence.Sections 30 and 33 -application filed questioning the award -. A. 1860 -. 1940 -. Nos. Justice N. 436 of 1997) A. Respondent. Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act. 2002 -. P.P. W. clearly prove that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under section 477-A IPC also but for some unacceptable reasons. Justice G. decided on 1/12/2004. Sinha. Union of India Respondent. decided on 12/16/2003. Rajendra Babu allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of detention — Mathur. 53 of 2004 (with W. (Crl. Mohd. Mathur and Rajendra Babu.COM 88(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. J. 2004 SCCL. (Crl.P.) No. 48/2003]) People's Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. the trial court came to the conclusion that the said offence is not established -. held that the Writ Petition and SLP were liable to be dismissed — matter placed before three Judge Bench — whether there could be due application of mind on the part of the Central Government and proper disposal of the representation in the absence of English translated copies of documents relied on in the detention order? — majority opinion delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism Act.P. Kutty under the previsions of conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA). Petitioners Vs. (Crl. 89/2002.P.) No. questioned — detention order also challenged in the High Court by way of writ petition filed under Article 226 — writ petition dismissed — judgment challenged in the Special Leave Petition — SLP came to be heard before G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Mathur. Justice S.conclusion available on this point is that the receipt was prepared by the appellant after he was released on BAIL and the same is now sought to be utilised as a defence for the money received -.the facts as proved by the prosecution and as accepted by the two courts below including us in this appeal. Venkatarama Reddi on behalf of himself and Hon’ble the Chief Justice — A perusal of the detention order would reveal that the statements of Anodiyal Mammu. Razia Appellant Vs.) No.COM 1052(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Justice S. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.provisions -constitutional validity of. 28/2003 & W.P.P. 129/2002.) No. Rajendra Babu and Hon’ble Mr.B. J. Subject Index: Writ of habeas corpus — issuance of — detention of the petitioner’s husband. Venkatarama Reddi and Hon’ble Mr.) No. (Crl.P.the appellant who is on BAIL shall surrender to the BAIL and serve out the balance of sentence.C. W. (Crl. 389 of 2002 [With W. 6 of 2003)) A. 2003 SCCL. who was intercepted at the airport and that of the detenu and the statements of all others recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act as well as the subsequent letters retracting from the earlier statements were referred to in the detention order elaborately . Government of Kerala and others Respondents. Justice P. findings reversed by the High Court -.and exhaustively — the contents of the letters received from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the counsel for A. Rejection of BAIL .G. In the circumstances. The writ petition and Criminal Appeal are therefore dismissed.the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the conviction and sentence are flimsy.cancellation of -.when a person to whom BAIL has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial. The accused Raja Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar are directed to surrender to their BAIL bonds. untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence -. The constitutional guarantee does not go to that extent — thus. Subject Index: Bail -.P.Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 114 -. 2004 SCCL. 657 of 1997)) Hem Raj Appellant Vs. decided on 1/22/2004. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. 1860 -. Justice K. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Mammu have also been referred to in paras 10 and 17 — the very perusal of the detention order would give a clear picture of the incriminating material relied upon by the detaining authority. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. A.granted -. Srikrishna.C. Justice B. State of Maharashtra Respondent. No. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.conviction and sentence -.COM 47(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2004) Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Appellant Vs.the prosecution successfully proved that the accused Raja Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar fired bullets at Mota Ram and caused his death -exhortation made to kill the deceased Mota Ram is attributed to him and that by itself is not a strong evidence to prove his complicity -accused Raja Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar are convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. decided on 1/16/2004. Justice Arijit Pasayat. 2004 SCCL.the reasons given by the High Court in reversing the conviction are not tenable or justifiable -.COM 40(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. BAIL granted can be cancelled. to insist on the perusal of original or true copies of statements and other documents referred to in the detention order would amount to insisting on an empty formality. and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Raja Ram and others Respondents. The accused Hari Padam is acquitted of all the charges framed against him.N. the only contention raised before us touching on the validity of detention order has to be negatived. 656 of 1997 (With Crl. Singh.no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed -. It would be appropriate if the trial Court completes the trial as early as practicable.the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for passing the order of cancellation of BAIL granted earlier -. Lakshmanan.COM 120(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Respondents.anticipatory granting of -. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Dr. 162 of 2004) Omar Usman Chamadia.when the dispute with the husband could not be resolved. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice AR. decided on 2/4/2004.without assigning any reason why a BAIL refused by the Sessions Court by a reasoned order should be reversed by the High Court. if not already completed. Santosh Hegde and Hon'ble . Appellant Vs. the same. of Delhi Respondent.this is a fit case in which the BAIL granted to the first respondent by the High Court should be cancelled -. Justice Y.) No. Subject Index: Bail -. If appellant makes any fresh application for BAIL. decided on 2/10/2004.T. Justice N. has preferred this appeal seeking the cancellation of the BAIL -. 2004 SCCL. keeping in view the mandate of Section 309 of the Code.COM 70(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.refused by the sessions court -.P. decided on 1/12/2004. Subject Index: Bail -. shall be dealt with in accordance with law. Justice B. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. but cancellation of BAIL is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to -. Abdul and Anr. Justice N.stands on one footing. it goes without saying. State of N. the appellant.COM 87(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.the need for delivering a reasoned order is a requirement of law which has to be complied with in all appealable orders.K. 4810 of 2003) Sanjay Bhagwani Appellant Vs.the trial was in progress when BAIL was cancelled. 193 of 2004) Biman Chatterjee Appellant Vs. 2004 SCCL. It is against the said order of the High Court. taking all ornaments and clothes. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.C. she. who is a complainant in this case.granted by the High Court -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. 50 of 2004 SLP (Crl. Sanchita Chatterjee and another Respondents. came back with her uncle and brother to her parents' house -the appellant is entitled to be granted anticipatory BAIL. it proceeded to allow the application by imposing certain conditions. 2004 SCCL. Mr. Justice B.P. Singh. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- section 498A -- complaint under -- grant of BAIL on the assurance of compromise -- cancellation of BAIL -- the High Court was not justified in cancelling the BAIL on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise --no compromise -- non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a BAIL -- what the court has to bear in mind while granting BAIL is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code -- having granted the BAIL under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of BAIL in the said provision of law. 2004 SCCL.COM 162(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 853 of 1997) Vimla Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 2/11/2004. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- sections 302, 120 B 380 and 460 -- murder of landlady -- both husband and wife sentenced for varying period of imprisonment maximum of which was life imprisonment -- conviction and sentence of husband has become final -- appellant enlarged on BAIL -- the courts below have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant. 2004 SCCL.COM 177(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (CRL). No. 2527 of 2003 (With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2528 of 2003) Mandata Singh Petitioner Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents, decided on 2/17/2004. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan. Subject Index: Bail -- granting of FIRs filed against the petitioner -he had already undergone more than 14 months of imprisonment as under trial prisoner and therefore he should be shown mercy and released on BAIL -- on 6.10.2003 granted BAIL temporarily to the petitioner for a period of four months subject to his furnishing a BAIL bond in an amount of Rs. 10,000/- -- it was made clear in the order that if the petitioner misuses the liberty given to him his BAIL application would be liable to be cancelled. The case was ordered to be listed after 14 weeks -- temporary BAIL granted cancelled -- trial Court is directed to dispose of the case without granting any adjournments of long duration. The case should be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months and if need be by taking up the case on day to day basis. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the accusation of petitioner. 2004 SCCL.COM 227(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2004) Union of India Appellant Vs. Mahaboob Alam Respondent, decided on 2/27/2004. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh. Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- granting of BAIL -- to the repeat offender -- no application of mind by the learned judge -- not a case in which the High Court ought to have enlarged the respondent on BAIL. 2004 SCCL.COM 255(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2004) Customs, New Delhi Appellant Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira Respondent, decided on 3/11/2004. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur. Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- section 37 -- granting of BAIL -customs authorities recovered huge quantity of 'Diazepam' tablets from the accused -- High Court granted BAIL -- as no material placed to show that it was Psychotropic substance -- the report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory was brought to the notice of the High Court. The same was lightly brushed aside without any justifiable reason -- the grant of BAIL to the accused was not called for. The impugned order granting BAIL is set aside and the BAIL granted is cancelled. 2004 SCCL.COM 263(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2004) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Appellant Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another Respondents, decided on 3/12/2004. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh. Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of BAIL the court entertaining such subsequent BAIL applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier BAIL applications were rejected -- the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications -- the High Court was not justified in granting BAIL to the first respondent on the ground that he has been in custody for a period of 3½ years or that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, without taking into consideration the other factors. 2004 SCCL.COM 277(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4773 of 2003) Moulvi Hussain Ibrahim Umarji Petitioner Vs. State of Gujarat Respondent, decided on 3/17/2004. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur. Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- petitioner arrested in connection with incident when Sabarmati Express was stopped near Godhra and a Coach was set on fire resulting in death of 59 persons and serious injuries to 48 others -- petitioner charged for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 337, 338, 435, 186, 120(b), 153(a), 302, 307, 395, 397 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) and Section 3(3) of the POTA, and Sections 141, 151 and 152 of the Indian Railways Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act -not fit case where petitioner may be released on BAIL. 2004 SCCL.COM 1000(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.126566 of 2004) Arvind Mohan Johari & Another Appellants Vs. State of U.P. and Another Respondents, decided on 11/3/2004. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha. Subject Index: Cheating -- forgery etc. various offences committed -request for BAIL -- no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the Appellants in continued detention -- all endeavours should be made to realise as much amount as possible from the personal and other assets of the Appellants by putting them on sale or otherwise -- all Courts, Tribunals and Statutory Authority are hereby directed to produce all documents and papers which are in their power and possession in accordance with law, as and when called for by the learned Company Judge or the Presiding Officer(s) appointed in terms of this order -- it would be open to the learned Company Judge to avail the services of official liquidator as also lawyers and their remuneration may be fixed by the learned Company Judge which would be realized from the assets of the Appellants. 2004 SCCL.COM 318(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2004) Narcotics Control Bureau Appellant Vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade Respondent, decided on 3/18/2004. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat. When a judge is attacked and assaulted in his court room and chambers by persons on which shoulders lay the obligation of maintaining law and order and protecting the citizen against any unlawful act needs to be condemned in the severest of terms -. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 2/26/2004. A.COM 453(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.BAIL granting of -in the case at hand the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 and transgressed the limitations statutorily imposed in allowing BAIL.and 37 -. 318. No doubt the appellants had been suspended initially but in due course they have been reinstated. Justice R.K. B. the appellants be released on BAIL. Justice Ashok Bhan.the disciplinary authorities before whom the disciplinary proceedings are pending and the criminal Courts before whom the prosecutions are pending against the appellants to conclude . decided on 4/13/2004. 2004 SCCL. Some of them have retired as well.BAIL -. Appellants Vs. 5534 of 2003) Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani @ Janani and another Petitioners Vs. Act. Subject Index: N. 1985 -.denied -.sections 20(b)(ii)(c).C.it is unfortunate that neither the criminal proceedings nor the disciplinary proceedings or the inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act have been concluded.contemners against whom there was single identification were also given the benefit of doubt -. Inaction on the part of the authorities resulted in emboldening others to commit similar acts -.P. Nos. 25 . Justice K.incidents which undermine the dignity of the courts should be condemned and dealt with swiftly. Justice B.the High Court found only those contemners guilty against whom the element of doubt was completely eliminated -.D. 1985 -. Pandey Respondent. 316 of 1998 (With Crl. 332 and 396 of 1998)) Daroga Singh and Ors.it is unfortunate that in one of the largest constitutional democracies of the world the police has not been able to change its that trait of hostility -.alleged violation of section 42 -.appeal -.D. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Srikirshna. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Act.N.Subject Index: N.High Court decided to proceed in a summary manner -. if any.S. 2004 SCCL.having regard to the special facts of the case.appellants accused under sections 20(b) (ii)(c) and 25 -.) No. cannot as in the instant case entitle an accused to get BAIL notwithstanding prohibitions contained in Section 37. Subject Index: Contempt proceedings -.Section 37 -.COM 364(Case/Appeal No: SLP (Crl. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act -Mere non-compliance of the order passed for supply of copies. State through Inspector of Police Respondent.P.S. 317.G. COM 489(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. decided on 4/12/2004. Subject Index: Constitution of India -.Article 32 -. Nos.anticipatory BAIL -. decided on 4/29/2004.COM 512(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. Subject Index: Bail -. 446449 of 2004 (with Crl.the proceedings and the trial at the earliest.quality and credibility of evidence -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. we direct that the re-trial shall be done by a Court under the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court. Appellants Vs. Respondents. decided on 4/27/2004. Ahmedabad in a complaint filed by the said Suresh Kumar . to accord such liberties to the complainants party. Justice N.petition under -validity of the complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. glaringly demonstrating subversion of justice delivery system and with no congeal and conductive atmosphere still prevailing. Santosh Hegde.granted -. Sheikh and another Appellants Vs. Justice Arijit Pasayat. Court No.H. Singh. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon'ble Mr.improper conduct of trial by the Public Prosecutor -. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. would be appropriate. Union of India and Ors. and the ample evidence on record. A. Though the witnesses or the victims do not have any choice in the normal course to have a say in the matter of appointment of a Public Prosecutor in view of the unusual factors noticed in this case. Hon'ble Mr. 46 of 2004) Vijay Shekhar & Anr. Justice S.day to day trial mandate of section 309 of the Code -trial to be completed by December. 2004 SCCL. Justice N.the State Government to appoint another Public Prosecutor and it shall be open to the affected persons to suggest any name which may also be taken into account in the decision to so appoint. Justice B. State of Gujarat and others Respondents.P.witness Protection -. Respondents. 554 of 2004) Raj Kumar Jain and Anr. The Chief Justice of the said High Court is requested to fix up a Court of Competent jurisdiction -. Appellants Vs. 2004 SCCL. 2004 SCCL.B. 2004 -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Kapadia.cancellation of -the High Court was not justified in cancelling the BAIL granted. 450-452 of 2004)) Zahira Habibulla H.10.COM 507(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Best Bakery Case -. Kundan Jain and Anr. Justice S. ) No. Singh. 118 of 2004 dated 15.the complaint in question is a product of fraud and a total abuse of the process of court.prosecution for possessing 790 grams of heroin -.Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. liable to be set aside. decided on 4/22/2004.G.2004 is ex facie an act of fraud by a fictitious person. Srikrishna. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Jalaluddin A. Trivandrarum Petitioner Vs. 1985 -. State of M. 2004 SCCL. decided on 4/21/2004.found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge -.C.the appellant had also no case that he was in the habit of using the drug and he kept in his possession for his personal consumption. Subject Index: NDPS Act. Justice N.P. Justice K. 10 at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 2004 SCCL.commercial quantity -. the appellant completely denied the recovery of the drug from him -. 504. When questioned under section 313. 506(1) and 114 IPC against 4 persons named therein and consequential BAILable warrants issued against the said persons by the said court -. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr.750 milligrams of smack recovered from the appellant -. 1985 -.1.a fraudulent act even in judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to stand -.P.Sections 8/21. Cr.COM 586(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 42 and 50 -. 2603 of 2003)) N.the complaint registered before the Metropolitan Magistrate.P.COM 584(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. of 2004 (Arising out of SLP (Crl. Justice B. Court No. Court No.impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained -the impugned order of the High Court granting BAIL to the respondent cannot be sustained -. and an abuse of the process court. every and any action taken pursuant to the said complaint gets vitiated -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.Section 37 -. 420. 118 of 2004 dated 15. Respondent.1.B. 10 at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. hence.2004 and all actions taken thereon including the issuance of BAILable warrants is liable to be declared ab initio void. 613 of 2003) Manish Kumar Appellant Vs.C.application for grant of BAIL rejected by the Sessions Court -. Justice B. Subject Index: NDPS Act.remand the matter back to the High Court to consider the BAIL application of the respondent bearing in mind the restrictions found in Section 37 of the Act.Jethalal Sanghvi under Sections 406.the complaint filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. Respondent. There is also serious doubt whether the procedure required under the Code of Criminal Procedure was really followed by the Magistrate at all while taking cognizance of the offence alleged -.N.the appellant was granted BAIL by this Court and the appellant is directed .High Court granted the BAIL -. grant of BAIL by Punjab & Haryana High Court questioned -.even though the information must have been to the effect that the appellant was selling brown sugar at his house. decided on 4/21/2004. conveyance or enclosed place so as to attract section 42 of the Act. Thakker.section 389 -. . 2004 SCCL.N. 2001 -. The appellant in this case was released on BAIL by this Court. Justice K. Hasmat Respondent. he.G.the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 21(a) of the NDPS Act.COM 609(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1985 -. Justice C. Justice B. B) NDPS Act. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. was found at the pathway leading to his house and thereafter his body was searched. The learned Single Judge was perfectly right in holding that amended section 21 has no application as the appeal was still pending and in view of the proviso to section 41 of the Act 9/2001 -.K. Subject Index: A) NDPS Act. 2004 SCCL.the requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL should not be passed as a matter of routine -. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.Section 42 -violation of -.proviso to Section 41 of NDPS (Amendment) Act. The appellant is directed to surrender to his BAIL bonds within 3 weeks failing which the Special Judge will take appropriate steps to arrest him to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 715716 of 2004) State of Haryana Appellant Vs.to surrender his BAIL bonds within 3 weeks failing which the Special Judge will take appropriate steps to arrest him to undergo remaining period of sentence.small quantity -. 1337 of 2002) Satyapalan Appellant Vs. Srikrishna. in fact.the appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. decided on 7/26/2004.COM 588(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.Section 21(a) -. 1973 -. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. State of Kerala and another Respondents. 1985 -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. PW-3 had no occasion to search any building. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.the High Court by the impugned order granted BAIL primarily on the ground that after the conviction the accused respondent had been granted parole on three occasions and there was no allegation of any misuse of liberty during the period of parole -. but without any justification whatsoever.at the stage of granting BAIL a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken.P. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.the cryptic non-reasoned order of the High Court. BAILable or non-bailable. Thakker. Subject Index: Bail -. and another Respondents. is clearly indefensible. 921 of 2004) State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Justice C.the State Counsel should have pointed it out to the Court about the nature of the matter and the propriety of issuing BAILable or non-bailable warrants against the complainant appellant. 1973 -. decided on 1/30/2004.COM 713(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.K. 2004 SCCL. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Bail -.grant of -.K.at the stage of granting BAIL a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken.P.section 390 -. and another Respondents. Thakker. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. The unfurtunate sequel of such unmindful orders has been that the appellant was taken into custody and had to remain in jail for some time. Justice Arun Kumar. appellant complainant not present -BAILable warrant issued by High Court -.COM 750(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. maybe for a few days. decided on 8/16/2004.COM 739(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 2004) Chaman Lal Appellant Vs.2004 SCCL. decided on 8/23/2004.whether legal? false cases foisted because of political rivalry -. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.when appeal against acquittal heard. Justice C. Sitaram Popat Vetal and another Respondents. Such orders cannot stand.even though criminal antecedents are always not determinative of the question whether BAIL .challenged in two appeal -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.granting of -. She suffered in view of the total non-application of mind at the stage of passing of the two impugned orders. State of U. 141 of 2004) Omwati Appellant Vs. State of U. But that does not mean that while granting BAIL some reasons for prima facie concluding why BAIL was being granted is not required to be indicated -. Some degree of care is supposed to be taken before passing an order of issue of warrants. 2004 SCCL. But that does not mean that while granting BAIL some reasons for prima facie concluding why BAIL was being granted is not required to be indicated -. if the protective umbrella of Section 438 is extended beyond what was laid down in Salauddin’s case (supra) the result would be clear bypassing of what is mandated in Section 439 regarding custody. Hon’ble Mr. Obviously. In other words.Section 438 -. Justice G. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Respondents. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. the requirements of Section 439 become dead letter.2 would surrender to custody as required in law so that his application under Section 439 of the Code can be taken for disposal. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr.is to be granted.the respondent has not made out a case for cancellation of the BAIL and the High Court has erred in doing so. 2004 SCCL. Santosh Hegde. Thakker. yet their relevance cannot be totally ignored -. Justice C. Respondent no.granted by trial court -.COM 762(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.K. . Justice N. No part of a statute can be rendered redundant in that manner -the protection given to the respondent no. Mathur. such BAIL is BAIL in terms of Section 439 of the Code.protection to respondent No.as observed in Salauddin’s case the protection in terms of Section 438 is for a limited duration during which the regular Court has to be moved for BAIL. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -. Otherwise.B. Justice S. 978 of 2004) Nirmal Jeet Kaur Appellant Vs. till the applicant avails remedies upto higher Courts.the trial court after looking into the case diary and other material produced before it and also noticing the fact that investigating agency had only sought judicial remand.the grant of BAIL to the respondents does not appear to be in order.P. State of West Bengal and another Respondents.2 assailed by the appellant -. mandating the applicant to be in custody.2 by the High Court while the application under Section 439 of the Code is pending is clearly unsustainable. Subject Index: Bail -. decided on 8/25/2004. 2004 SCCL.COM 781(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.High Court has approached the case as if it is an appeal against the conviction by giving findings on factual issues which are yet to be decided -. and the argument of the possibility of accused tampering with the evidence still taking into consideration the age and ailments of the accused appellant granted BAIL on stringent condition -. decided on 9/1/2004. the distinction between orders under Sections 438 and 439 shall be rendered meaningless and redundant -. 936 of 2004) Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.cancelled by High Court -. Justice Ruma Pal and Hon’ble Mr.A. decided on 9/8/2004. 46664671. Kolhapur and other Respondents and Shri Chatrapati Sahakari Shakar Karkhana Ltd. 4878 of 2002 and 1013-1017/2002. 3475. 3589-3591. 5868. 1973 could be filed in respect of offences contemplated under the provisions of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 3429-32. 6973-6975 of 2000 (with C..COM 828(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2004 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. 1966 -.I. Justice N. Venkatarama Reddi. therefore. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble . 3378-3380. A review application was filed for suitable modification on the ground that Section 8 of the Act has not been properly analysed -. decided on 9/10/2004. 1966 -Section 438 -. 469-470/2003. 5489-94. not justified in holding that since the offences have been specifically made BAILable under the Act. 2544. 5876.COM 844(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2004 SCCL. 2122. Nos. 2717-2718.whether an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 466470. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. 7028-7038. 5877. 1013-1017 of 2002) (with C. decided on 9/17/2004. 4732-36. Subject Index: Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 5879/2004)) Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.T. 69767026. 7243. Justice P. 3962-64 4191. 5867.2004 SCCL. 3790-3796. Respondent.A. 10301031 of 2004) Jagtar Singh and another Appellants Vs. 608 of 1999) Union of India and another Appellants Vs. C. State of Punjab and others Respondents. 5869. 6088-89. 7923-7924/2001. Subject Index: Income Tax Act -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. 4737-4742. 5870. 7454/2001. 5878. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. The State of Assam Respondent. 6611.4479-80. 4673-4682. 7399-7400/2002. Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar. 5073-77. they are BAILable. 5871-5875. 3996-4002. 5496-5502. 5207. Appellant and Commissioner of Income Tax. Nos.COM 817(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. The conclusion is indefensible. 4062-63. 2958. Such view is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act -.Single Judge held that the offences were BAILable after referring to Section 8 of the Act.Learned Single Judge was. 4691-4731. 3339-3348.the High Court was not justified in holding that all the offences under the Act are BAILable. 3567.whether compulsory deductions made by sugar cooperative societies on account of non-refundable and refundable deposits and other Funds are revenue receipts liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act. 4008-09. 177-269. 5479-88. 4293. 3777-3785. 7461-7465/2000. Pune Appellant Vs. a detention order which has been validly passed cannot be rendered invalid on account of the own conduct of the detenu of absconding and evading service -. Hon'ble Mr.COM 903(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. Government of Kerala and others Respondents. 1067 of 2004) Kishori Lal Appellant Vs. 69 of 2004) T. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice C. . the amount will be kept in interest bearing deposit till appropriate orders. Subject Index: COFEPOSA -.P.N.this is not a case where the petitioner may have been taken into custody in connection with some serious criminal case where there may be no immediate possibility of his getting BAIL -. 2004 SCCL.Mr. the father of one of the complainants -Nanak Chand filed an application for grant of anticipatory BAIL -.in the interest of justice. Justice A. filed in the appeal with the prayer that execution of substantive sentence of imprisonment for life and fine the suspended -. Kishori Lal Appellant.K. Justice B. Sinha.also offered to deposit Rs. decided on 9/23/2004. Subject Index: Bail -. decided on 9/30/2004.setting aside -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. decided on 10/14/2004.P. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Moideen Koya Petitioner Vs.K.K.C. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 1860 -. Papanaika and others Respondents.an application under section 389 of Cr.a criminal complaint of cheating and conspiracy filed against the appellants and Nanak Chand.even on merits.the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. the ground urged in support of the writ petition has no substance. 32 filed -. 5.in the event of settlement the amount will be paid to the complainants -.detention of the petitioner under section 3(i)(iv) -.B.COM 864(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2004 SCCL.the petition under Art. 2004 SCCL. 590 of 1999) State of Karnataka Appellant Vs. Thakker. Mathur. Justice G.82 lacs to show his bona fides -. Justice P. Justice S. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr.dispute arose -.P.Sections 3(i)(iv) -. Balasubramanyan.Sections 120B and 420 -.COM 963(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.legality of grant of BAIL called in question -. Sunil Rathi and Anr. 504 and 506 -. 302. 6622 of 2003 (with C.appeal against acquittal -.1) is set aside. Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.in all civil and criminal matters.The accused persons who are on BAIL.5. their BAIL bonds are cancelled and they shall surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining sentence within one month.granting of BAIL under -. Respondents.COM 1007(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. There should be proper appreciation of evidence and finding has to be recorded against each witness as to why the said witness is not being believed when he was believed by the trial court -. it is not for any Court to tell a superior Court as to how a matter should be decided when an appeal is taken against its decision to that superior Court. 1951 -.acquittal by High Court -. Subject Index: Representation of People Act. Such a course would be subversive of judicial discipline on the bedrock of which the judicial system is founded and finality is attached and orders are obeyed -.COM 1110(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. decided on 12/15/2004. 148.A.Sections 143.2004 granting BAIL to Sunil Rathi (respondent no. 2004 SCCL.P. 148.section 81 (3) 83(1)(a)(c) and 83(2) -non-compliance of the mandatory provisions -. Justice S. decided on 11/3/2004. 147. 324 -. Justice N. Santosh Hegde.Sections 147. 302.in the hierarchical judicial system. In the present case. Justice Tarun Chatterjee. the Supreme Court is the highest and the ultimate Court of appeal -. 149. 1860 -.there is no two opinion that the High Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a conclusion independently but the conclusion which is arrived at by the High Court should be rational and proper appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses. 1860 -. No.appeal -. This approach of the High Court is not correct. 6750 of 2003)) Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar Appellant Vs. 2004 SCCL.conviction -. then what is the guarantee that other part is also true -Division Bench has disbelieved the entire prosecution evidence. Mathur.B.the appeal is allowed and the order dated 27. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. 404. 341. Shri Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar and others Respondents. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. the High Court has not examined the statement of the witnesses and just on a bald statement that when the prosecution version has been accepted in full and the witnesses have tendency to over implicate. 307. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1269 of 2004) Sompal Singh Appellant Vs.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.whether the returned candidates proved that the election petitions were liable to be rejected .section 116A -statutory appeals filed under -. 83(1) (a)(c) and 83(2) of the Act? -. 44 of 2005) Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Appellant Vs. Mathur.P.2004 of Madras High Court. Naolekar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. 2005 SCCL. Jayarajan Respondent with Nafe Singh and others Respondents. Patil. 1951 -.P. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside.whether the returned candidates proved that the election petitions were liable to be rejected in limine under section 86 of the Act by reason of its non-compliance of sections 81(3).N. Justice G.G.appeal by special leave -.A.P. Hon’ble Mr. Balakrishnan.Whether a appellate judgment of a date subsequent to the date of election and having a bearing on conviction of a candidate and sentence of imprisonment passed on him would have the effect of wiping out disqualification from a back date if a person consequent upon his conviction for any offence and sentenced to . Justice K. The petitioner shall be released on BAIL on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hon'ble Mr. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent.P. the petitioner shall not visit the Mutt premises.granting of -. by which the petition for BAIL filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.disqualification under -. No.till the submission of the charge sheet in Court. Chengleput -. Prabhakaran Appellant with Ramesh Singh Dalal Appellant Vs.COM 18(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.under section 81(1) read with section 86 of the Act by reason of it being barred by limitation? -. was rejected -prima facie a strong case has been made out for grant of BAIL to the petitioner. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Subject Index: Representation of the people Act.C. Hon’ble Mr.whether the respondent No. P. Srikrishna. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr.the Appeals should be allowed and the matter be remitted to the High Court for determining the dispute on merits. He shall also surrender his passport before the CJM.COM 24(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.1 proved that the election petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 86 of the Act by reason of non-disclosure of any cause of action? -. decided on 1/11/2005. 6691 of 2002)) P.12. 8213 of 2001 (with C. Justice G. decided on 1/10/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Subject Index: Bail -. there has been substantial compliance of the requirements of law -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice.under section 116A of the Act the Supreme Court is conferred with power not only to decide an appeal filed under this section on a question of law but it would also be open to the Supreme Court to decide the appeal on facts as well -in any event. 2005 SCCL. Justice P.Section 8(3) -.against the order dated 8. the evidence available against them.imprisonment for not less than 2 years was disqualified from filing nomination and contesting the election on the dates of nomination and election.the judgment of the High Court dated 5.granting the BAIL to accused Nos.an appellate judgment of a date subsequent to the date of nomination or election (as the case may be) and having a bearing on conviction of a candidate or sentence of imprisonment passed on him would not have the effect of wiping out disqualification from a back date if a person consequent upon his conviction for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years was actually and as a fact disqualified from filing nomination and contesting the election on the date of nomination or election (as the case may be) -. -.1 to 3 without considering the criminal history of the accused.What is the purport of subsection (4) of Section 8 of RPA? Whether the protection against disqualification conferred by sub-section (4) on a member of a House would continue to apply through the candidate had ceased to be a member of Parliament or Legislature of a State on the date of nomination or election? -. the threats to the life of the complainant/appellant and his family members and likelihood to abscond from the criminal courts of justice and rendering the fair trial impossible -. which was declared on 13. 2005 SCCL. decided on 1/17/2005.the .10. is set aside. Digambar Mishra and others Respondents.'A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years" as employed in sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act.14 Kuthuparamba Assembly Constituency to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Dr.2001. Subject Index: Bail -.COM 37(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression 'sentence to imprisonment for not less than 2 years' as occurring in Sec. The election of the respondent P. The respondent No. The election petition filed by the appellant is allowed. 8(3) of the RPA? -. 107-108 of 2005) Panchanan Mishra Appellant Vs. The election of the respondent Nafe Singh from 37-Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency is declared void as he was disqualified from being a candidate under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act.2001 is set aside.What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression . Justice AR Lakshmanan. 1951.the accused were armed with the guns and they surrounded the brothers and the complainant/appellant -.special leave petitions passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos. Jayarajan from No. 50 of 2004 and 62 of 2004 -.The election petition filed by the appellant shall stand allowed.granted by the Patna High Court -.1 shall bear the costs of the appellant throughout -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. 1951? Is it necessary that the term of imprisonment for not less than 2 years must be in respect of one single offence to attract the disqualification? -.5. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. 307 read with 34 I. Anil Mishra was also injured -.in the absence of any new or fresh ground.Court also observed that though an accused had a right to make successive applications for grant of BAIL the court entertaining such subsequent BAIL applications had duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier BAIL applications were rejected and in such cases the court also had a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications -. Rajendra Mishra and Jitendra Mishra for the offence under Sections 148. 307 read with 34.K.B.the prosecution on the basis of the material available on record has established a prima facie case against the accused -. Appellant Vs.COM 43(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Hon'ble Mr. Balasubramanyan. 302/307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.P.is charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34. One of the deceased was an advocate. decided on 1/18/2005.grant of BAIL solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order of the High Court granting BAIL -. 302 read with 34. Justice N. 120-B. Subject Index: Bail -.C.the order passed by the High Court in granting BAIL in Criminal Appeal Nos. The accused Digambar Mishra was convicted and sentenced under Section 109 read with Section 302 and under Section 307 I. Santosh Hegde.granting of -.the High Court was totally in error in allowing the BAIL application of the respondent by the impugned order -.P.C. This application before the High Court for grant of BAIL was the 9th application in the series of application filed by the said respondent for grant of BAIL -. 50 of 2004 and 62 of 2004 stands set aside and cancelled. 120 of 2005)) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.the conduct of the respondent-accused as brought on record clearly indicates that enlarging the said accused on BAIL would impede the progress of the trial -.the High Court did not take into proper account the grave apprehension of the prosecution that there was a likelihood of the accused persons tampering with the prosecution witnesses -. it was not open to the High Court to have reconsidered the same material and overruled the earlier findings of the court in the guise of considering afresh the existence of a prima facie -. Justice P. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another Respondents. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. another was lecturer and one was appointed auditor -. 2005 SCCL.the motive of the murder was on account of the occurrence which took place that the complainant/appellant had sold a land to Ramachandra Yadav and the accused persons felt annoyed at it and tried to garb those lands on the strength of their muscle power and there is also a litigation pending between the parties.impugned order .the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Mahendra Mishra. -.complainant brought the two injured sons on a thela to Sardar Hospital Munger but they died before any medical help could be given to them and they were declared dead. Justice S. 1129 of 2004(with Criminal Appeal No. P. 2005 SCCL. Variava.N. Kapadia.4. Justice S.2001. decided on 2/4/2005.K. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice S.whether the appellants be granted anticipatory BAIL or not. 2005 SCCL.BAIL application dismissed.COM 76(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Singh. Subject Index: Juvenile Act. decided on 2/21/2005. Justice N.219 of 2005 ETC) M. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Sinha. Justice H. Justice B.Section 438 -protection availability -. 1986 and 2000 -.B.4. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. 1860 -. Sinha. State of West Bengal Respondent.of the High Court quashed -. Justice S. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. decided on 2/2/2005.) 3749 of 2001) Pratap Singh Appellant Vs. Justice N. 1973 -. 210 of 2005 With Special Leave Petition (crl.2001 -the reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of an offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the Court -.the legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. 2005 SCCL.the provisions of 2000 Act would be applicable to those cases initiated and pending trial/inquiry for the offences committed under the 1986 Act provided that the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1.326 of 2005) Adri Dharan Das Appellant Vs.B.H. Hon'ble Mr. State of West Bengal and Another Respondent. Appellant Vs. Lohia etc. Sema and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. State of Jharkhand and another Respondents. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Hon'ble Mr.COM 119(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.charge under -. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.Sections 304B.P.COM 79(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Santosh Hegde. 406 and 498 A read with section 34 -.the 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding in any court/authority initiated under the 1986 Act and is pending when the 2000 Act came into force and the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1. The role of the investigator is well-defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the Court in the process of investigation is limited -when the BAIL application is moved in terms of Section 439 of the Code before the concerned Court the same shall be considered in its proper . and others Respondents. 611612 of 2003) Kamalanantha and others Appellants Vs. It illustrate a classic example as to how the insatiable lust for sex of A-1 Swami Premananda leads to the raping of 13 Ashram girls and murder of one Ravi.Division Bench held the violation mere irregularity which was curable -.3 crores to be paid by the company to the appellant in full and final settlement of the appellant's claims in respect of the 3417 and 93 shares -. Section 155 of the Companies Act. M/s. The The Ashram which is supposed to be God abode turned out to be devil's workshop. allows the giving of damages in addition to or in lieu of rectification -. 1956 -. 2005 SCCL. Sema. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mrs.the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 155 of the Companies Act was competent to entertain the applications filed by the appellants cannot be disputed.having regard to the amplitude of the gravity of the offence. A-1 to whom the inmates of the Ashram regarded as God having the divine power turned out to be a monster -.Section 155 -. perpetrated in an organized and systematic manner. decided on 4/5/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.ends of justice would be met by directing that the appellant should be compensated with an amount of Rs.perspective in accordance with law. Justice B. Subject Index: Appeal by Special Leave against conviction -.the company will also allot shares to the company out of the 17.transfer of shares made in violation of Section 108 of the companies as held by Single Judge -. Venkatarama Reddi.666 shares on par proportionate with the appellant's present share holding. Justice P.Proceedings initiated under -. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. 698-700 of 1995) Smt. but the civilized society at large. the fact remains that the appellant has been wronged and she is entitled to be compensated. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent.COM 254(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.it would not be appropriate at this stage to exercise our discretion to grant the relief of rectification. Justice Ruma Pal and Hon'ble Mr. The order . Claude-Lila Parulekar Appellant Vs. Justice H. The only question is whether the discretion to do so was properly exercised -. Sakal Papers Pvt.Court inclined to confirm the sentence and conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. Ltd.K. shocked the judicial conscience. 2005 SCCL. decided on 3/18/2005. needs to be curbed by a strong judicial hand -.COM 222(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. as revealed by the prosecution. However.N. Subject Index: Companies Act.the facts of this case. the nature of the offence and its deleterious effects not only against the victims. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Bail -.COM 269(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.H. State of Maharashtra and Another Respondents. Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act. 2005 SCCL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. 558 of 2005) Vasant Tukaram Pawar Appellant Vs. Kapadia.523 of 2005) Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Appellant Vs. decided on 4/11/2005. is questioned .could not get -.applied for anticipatory BAIL -. Justice S. Subject Index: Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act.COM 281(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.refusal by the Bombay High Court. 2005 SCCL.B.of the Trial Court that any remission of sentence or amnesty on any special occasions announced or to be announced be either by the Central or the State Government shall not apply to the sentence and imprisonment imposed on all the accused is also maintained. Justice S. State of Bihar & Another Respondent. 2005 SCCL.B. by the High Court is unsustainable.appellant charged under sections 302.P. Justice B. Aurangabad Bench to accept the prayer of the appellant for suspension of sentence and to be released on BAIL while admitting the appeal filed by him. Singh and Hon’ble Mr.ultimately got from High Court and cancelled -. Justice S. Justice N. Sinha. 1999 -interpretation and application of. 307 and 120 and sections 27 of the Arms Act after 10 years -. the investigation did not find sufficient material to include the appellant as an accused in those 7 charge-sheets is an indicator of the fact that for all these years the investigation agency could not find material against the appellant -the cancellation of BAIL by the impugned order. decided on 4/15/2005. Sinha.Section 13 -trial under -. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. State of Maharashtra Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.granted by High Court and then cancelled -challenged by the appeal -. Santosh Hegde. decided on 4/7/2005. As a matter of fact that for nearly 10 years and after filing 7 charge-sheets.the allegation of abscondence in past or the likelihood of abscondence in future cannot be accepted. 1988 -.COM 261(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. 529 of 2005) Nityanand Rai Appellant Vs. COM 351(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Misc. Subject Index: Bail -. Petition Nos. The parties. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Metropolitan Sessions Judge.and a surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Ist Addl.1265-1266 of 2004) Arvind Mohan Johari & Another Appellants with The Stock Exchange. several arbitration awards are said to have been passed in favour of the clients/investors and the members of the Stock Exchanges. State of U. Justice P. Petition Nos.B.the Appellants misled this Court in passing the said order dated 3. decided on 5/4/2005.to whether the respective Stock Exchanges were entitled to debit the amounts of Rs.2004 by raising contention to the effect that a sum of Rs. 2005 SCCL. 2005 SCCL. 1860 -.the material on record does not justify the conclusion at this stage that the appellant would indulge in similar offence of an organised crime if she is released on BAIL -.21 Crores and 17 Crores respectively towards their purported claim should be directed to be scrutinized by us by a Chartered Accountant -.BAIL -granting of -. Sinha. & Another Respondents. Hon’ble Mr. Furthermore.11.COM 350(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 341 and Andhra Pradesh Control of Organized Crime Act.granting of -. decided on 5/4/2005. Justice N. Santosh Hegde.direct the appellant to be released on BAIL on furnishing personal bond for Rs. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr.47-48 of 2005 (with Criminal Misc.P.charge-sheet filed -.in this Appeal.000/. Venkatarama Reddi and Hon'ble Mr.P. Mumbai Applicant Vs. 2001 -. -having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. State of A.Sections 120-B read with Sections 364(A). therefore. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.P. 20. the very purpose for enlarging the Appellants herein on BAIL would not be subserved and in that view of the matter. Justice S. Hyderabad. 668669 of 2005) Vasanthi Appellant Vs. Justice D.rejected -. that if a substantial sum lying with them are not available for disbursement to the claimants. Dharmadhikari and Hon’ble Mr.M. must get their disputes determined in an appropriate forum -.the recoveries have been directed to be made by the Stock Exchanges in exercise of their power conferred upon them under the bye-laws governing the parties. Justice P. Naolekar.appellant arrested under -.17 Crores and 13 Crores are admittedly lying with the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange in the shape of bank guarantee money and securities margin money etc. .53-54 of 2005) IN Criminal Appeal Nos. Respondent. 2005 SCCL.COM 412(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 5321 of 2004) C.R. Patil Petitioner Vs. State of Gujarat and others Respondent, decided on 7/22/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker & Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan. Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- petitioners willing to pay the amount due -- terms and conditions of previous temporary BAIL complied with -- petitioners making honest effort to repay the debt -no useful purpose will be served in keeping them behind bars -- petition allowed. 2005 SCCL.COM 448(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 496 of 2002 (with W.P. (C) No. 570 of 2002)) Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Petitioner Vs. Union of India Respondent, decided on 8/2/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee. Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 -- recommendations and suggestions to various amendments in the Code made -- draft Civil Procedure - Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules and Model Case Flow Management Rules framed -- High Courts, Central / State Governments to take requisite action and file progress report within four months. 2005 SCCL.COM 456(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 144-145 of 2004) Jacob Mathew Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another Respondents, decided on 8/5/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 304A and 34 -complaints against -- doctors for negligence resulting in loss of life or injury -- professional negligence -- all the averments made in the complaint, even if held to be proved, do not make out a case of criminal rashness or negligence on the part of the accused appellant -- it is not the case of the complainant that the accused-appellant was not a doctor qualified to treat the patient whom he agreed to treat. It is a case of non- availability of oxygen cylinder either because of the hospital having failed to keep available a gas cylinder or because of the gas cylinder being found empty -- the accused appellant cannot be proceeded against under Section 304A IPC on the parameters of Bolam's test. 2005 SCCL.COM 509(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1069 of 2005) Ateef Nasir Mulla Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 8/24/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha. Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 -- Section 49(2)(b) -- investigation -- application for extension of time to complete investigation and extension of remand -- notice and opportunity to file reply given to accused -- order of further detention passed after hearing both parties -- grant of extension valid -- dismissal of BAIL application upheld -- appeal dismissed. 2005 SCCL.COM 530(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1115 of 2005) V.D. Chaudhary Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondent, decided on 9/1/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Section 482 -- BAIL -- grant of -- no reasons for grant of BAIL indicated -- BAIL sought on ground that police surreptitiously changed the nature of offence -- held no embargo on police to file charge-sheet indicating appropriate offence -- BAIL not cancelled as prosecution evidence closed -- directions to complete trial by specified date. 2005 SCCL.COM 542(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.1154 of 2005) Surinder Singh @ Shingara Singh Appellant Vs. State of Punjab Respondent, decided on 9/6/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia. Subject Index: Bail -- conviction for offence of murder -- BAIL application filed during pendency of appeal dismissed -- challenged on ground of ratio of judgment in Dharampal vs. State of Haryana -- held aforesaid case only laid down guidelines which ought to be kept in mind while dealing with application for grant of BAIL in pending appeal and not any invariable rule -- interim BAIL already granted -- made absolute. 2005 SCCL.COM 564(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1223 of 2005) Anwari Begum Appellant Vs. Sher Mohammad and another Respondents, decided on 9/19/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Section 439 -- BAIL -- granted by High Court by non-speaking and non-reasoned order -accused charged for offence of murder -- factors to be considered by Court before granting BAIL enumerated -- High Court's order showed complete non-application of mind- BAIL cancelled -- appeal allowed. 2005 SCCL.COM 585(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of 2005 (with Crl. A. No. 1249 of 2005)) State through C.B.I. Appellant Vs. Amarmani Tripathi Respondent with Madhumani Tripathi Respondent, decided on 9/26/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran. Subject Index: Bail -- grant of -- respondents husband & wife accused of murder -- material on record showing that husband tried to interfere with the course of investigation, tamper with witnesses and fabricate evidence -- wife absconded for several months -- apprehension if husband alone taken into custody, wife may take over task of tampering with evidence and manipulating witnesses -- principles relating to grant or refusal of BAIL not followed by High Court -- BAIL revoked. 2005 SCCL.COM 708(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1470 of 2005) State of Tamil Nadu Petitioner Vs. S. A. Raja Respondent, decided on 10/26/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar. Subject Index: Bail -- grant of -- accused charged with offences under Indian Penal Code and Arms Act -- BAIL rejected by High Court and Supreme Court -- thereafter application again moved before High Court which granted BAIL -- no change in circumstances -- strong allegations against accused who is likely to influence witnesses -- principles of res judicata not applicable to BAIL applications, but repeated filing of BAIL applications with out any change of circumstances leads to bad precedents -- BAIL order set aside -- appeal allowed. 2005 SCCL.COM 733(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1476 of 2005) P.K. Shaji @ Thammanam Shaji Appellant Vs. State of Kerala Respondent, decided on 10/27/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.COM 805(Case/Appeal No: S.order of refusal of BAIL upheld -. Shiv Saran Gupta Respondent. Sessions Court had empowered Magistrate to consider question of violation and pass appropriate orders -.BAIL rejected -.P.B.Section 439 -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.BAIL granted by High Court -not a fit case for grant of BAIL -. 1985 -. Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1973 -.enough material to show prime facie involvement of petitioners directors in case -.N.Directors of bank accused of siphoning off huge amounts of funds of bank through systematic fraud -.if released on BAIL might abscond or tamper with evidence due to huge amounts involved -.V. 1526 of 2005) Himanshu Chandravadan Desai and others Appellants Vs.K. Justice H. decided on 11/16/2005. Justice P.BAIL rejected. 21.L.Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Justice B. Shamim Respondent. Justice S. Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. decided on 1/10/2005. Sema.by order granting BAIL. State of Gujarat Respondent. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. 29 -. 649 of 2005) Union of India Petitioner Vs. 1973 -. 1985 -. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. 2005 SCCL.Section 439 -.challenged on ground that BAIL granted by Sessions Court cannot be cancelled by Magistrate -. Mohd. Variava and Hon'ble Mr.Section 37 -. Justice R. Balasubramanyan. (Crl.order legal and valid -. 2005 SCCL.contention of accused that he did not complied with directions as he was in jail untenable as same not raised before Magistrate -.) No.appeal dismissed. Justice S. 2005 SCCL. 4509 of 2004) Union of India Petitioner Vs.K. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr.appeal allowed.BAIL granted without taking into consideration or complying with provisions of section 37 -. decided on 5/2/2005.COM 776(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.N.order of cancellation of BAIL upheld.COM 806(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. .accused failed to comply with conditions for grant of BAIL -. Raveendran.BAIL -.cancellation of -.bank under liquidation due to the scam -.BAIL -.Sections 8.offences under -. A.COM 87(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.Sections 11 and 11A -award -.sentence reduced by High Court on ground that both accused had no criminal antecedents and one had appeared for class X examination -.COM 97(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Syed Hussain Respondent. Justice P. Singh and Hon'ble Mr.misconduct -.B.had committed misconduct on two previous occasions and punished for same -.BAIL granted during trial cancelled for breach of conditions imposed by court -. Justice Arun Kumar. decided on 1/31/2006.Tribunal upheld -.punishment of removal from service can be imposed when misconduct is committed by a person who holds position of trust -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.both aspects not considered by High Court -. a police constable stood surety for BAIL for a hardened criminal -. 1894 -.matter remanded back for fresh hearing. 6319 of 2004) The Commissioner of Police and others Appellants Vs. Justice S.respondent. 1176 of .appeal allowed. Appellants Vs. 2006 SCCL. Justice B. Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act.H.2006 SCCL. Justice S. Nos. Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society and others Respondents with The State of Karnataka and others Respondents. Bailamma @ Doddabailamma (Dead) and others Appellants withSri M. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 1/19/2006. 1860 -.Collector not required under the Act to give notice to interested persons of the date of pronouncement of the award -.number of criminal cases pending against accused persons -. State of Gujarat & Others Respondents. 2006 SCCL. 2006 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.COM 60(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos.appeals dismissed. Kapadia.removed from service -. Muthamma etc. Naolekar. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.offences under -.COM 41(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.order of removal passed by Administrative -. 2013-2015 of 1999 (with C.Sections 307 and 324 read with Section 114 -. Subject Index: Administrative Law -.P. etc. decided on 1/25/2006.P.118 of 2006 (with Criminal Appeal No. 2016-2023 of 1999 and 2073-2077 of 2000)) Smt. Kondandaraju and others Appellants with Smt.Collector made and signed award and same was approved by Government within two years of its date of last publication -.119 of 2006)) Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Another Appellants Vs. 2005) T.Preventive Detention -. Goondas. 2006 SCCL. decided on 2/16/2006. Justice P. . Agrawal. Subject Index: Constitution of India.only vital and relevant documents are required to be supplied to detenu -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Singh and Hon'ble Mr. 812 of 2004) Naveen Kohli Appellant Vs.B. Justice S. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr.R.A. Hon'ble Mr.Article 22 -Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act.V.P. Saravanan @ S. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.appellant already in custody on date of passing of order of detention -. 1955 -. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.COM 178(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. Justice B.no sufficient reasons to sustain order of detention -.whether BAIL application is required to be considered for passing an order of preventive detention? -. 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce. 2006 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 1950 -. Marriage Act. 1974 -.appeal dismissed.copy of order granting BAIL and order of remand furnished to detenu -. Justice A.appeal allowed.total disappearance of substratum in the marriage -.no material to show that there was imminent possibility of BAIL being granted -.Court would like to recommended the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi Vs.previous BAIL applications rejected -. Subject Index: Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers.K.marriage totally dead -. Subject Index: Hindu. decided on 2/24/2006.the marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.N. Forest Offenders. Balasubramanyan. 1982 -Section 3(1) -. 245 of 2006) Sunila Jain Appellant Vs.preventive detention -. Justice B.K.petition under for divorce -. Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act.application of mind to the averments made in BAIL application may be relevant where grounds stated therein reveal certain facts which are vital for passing order of detention -.COM 116(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 3/21/2006. Neelu Kohli Respondent. 1955 -. Union of India and another Respondents. Justice Altamas Kabir. State through Secretary and another. Drugs Offenders. appellant convicted for offence of murder -.vivid description of offence given by witnesses -. Raveendran.Section 2(h) -. 489 of 2006) Jitendra Ram @ Jitu Appellant Vs. decided on 5/5/2006. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. decided on 3/24/2006.plea not raised before trial court but at time of moving BAIL application -. Balasubramanyan . Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.Bihar Children Act. Sema and Hon'ble Mr.COM 194(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.K.hence act not in in discharge of official duty. Justice P. Justice H. Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. coerced.Section 197 -sanction -.COM 278(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice C. Justice S.nature and gravity of offence not considered while granting BAIL -.appeal allowed. Justice P.B. State of U.Majority -question whether the act was done in performance of duty or in purported performance of duty not examined -.appeal allowed.K.accused not arrested even though BAIL was rejected -.respondent a practicing advocate -.reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with or won over. 529 of 2006) Anil Kumar Tulsiyani Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Y.K. 1860 -. Hon'ble Mr.officials investigation started without grant of sanction u/s 197 -.BAIL cancelled -. State of Jharkhand Respondent. 2275 of . 2006 SCCL.COM 340(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. Sadhna Das and another Respondents. 2006 SCCL.2006 SCCL.scope of -.order granting BAIL challenged -.plea taken by appellant that he was a juvenile on date of incident -. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. 330 of 2006) Sankaran Moitra Appellant Vs.P.case of merciless beating by police -.V. Sabharwal. Subject Index: Bail -. threatened or intimidate by using his influence and position cannot be ruled out -. Smt.matter remanded back for determination of age of appellant on date of commission of offence -. 1973 -. and another Respondents.respondent charged for offence u/s 302 r/w 201 IPC -. decided on 4/25/2006.COM 327(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.K Balasubramanyan. Justice R.deceased beaten to death by police -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.no mitigating circumstances for granting BAIL -.Sections 201 and 302 -Juvenile Justice Act.K. 2006 SCCL.complaint quashed -Minority -. 1982 -Section 32 -. 1986 -. Justice P. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. decided on 5/12/2006. Justice C.appellant a public servant charged u/s 3(2). 2006 SCCL. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.no credible document produced by CMF to show that suit bonds were purchased by it by paying consideration -. Justice P.SCB owner of suit bonds -appeals allowed. Justice K. 691 & 692 of 2006) Senthamilselvi Appellant Vs. decided on 7/10/2006. decided on 5/5/2006.appropriate conditions imposed -.G.COM 369(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.valid title acquired by SCB -. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.K. 2276 of 2002)) Standard Chartard Bank Appellant Vs. Subject Index: Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act.Section 3(1)(i) -.COM 525(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.detention order upheld -.K. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd.K. Naolekar. 2006 SCCL. 640 of 2006) Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane Appellant Vs. Sabharwal.bonds sold by ABFSL to SCB -.detaining authority of the opinion that there was likelihood of detenu being released on BAIL -.Section 10 -.2002 (with Civil Appeal No. Thakker. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Y. 3(5) and 24 of MCOCA and 120-B of IPC for involvement in an organised crime -appellant in custody for more than two years and three months -appellant directed to be enlarged on BAIL on furnishing security of Rs. 1 lakh -.CMF claimed to be owner of the bonds having purchased them from a stock broker on behalf of SLB or ABFSL -.Preventive Detention -. and others Respondents.order of detention passed to prevent the detenu from indulging in smuggling -. 1973 -.BAIL -. Hon'ble Mr.N. 732 of 2006) Ibrahim Nazeer Appellant Vs. Srikrishna and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 6/9/2006. 2006 SCCL.granting of -. .P.COM 453(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.appeal allowed. State of Tamil Nadu and another Respondents. 1974 -. 1992 -.bonds issued by NPCL allotted to ABFSL -.Section 439 -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. State of Maharashtra Respondent. Subject Index: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. Balasubramanyan.appeal dismissed. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.reasons given for same -. Respondents. he was arraigned as accused No.dismissed by the impugned judgment -. 61 in the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 3. 977 of 2006) Mohammad Chand Mulani Appellant Vs. Justice Tarun Chatterjee. 1973 -. 472. Justice K. Subject Index: Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act.2.questioned by the mother of the appellant by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition before the Madras High Court -. decided on 9/18/2006. 3719 of 2006(with Civil Appeal No.P. daughter and brother of Telgi shall be kept out of the charge sheet as the Apex Court (in 2005 (5) . Lakshmanan and Hon'ble Mr. 221 IPC r/w sections 3(2).the detenu was not arrested on the basis of the co-accused's statement. Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K.Section 439 -rejecting application for BAIL -. 3722 of 2006)) B. Justice AR. was registered against certain persons -. 263-A. 260. 258. Raveendran.2004. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice R. Balakrishnan. On the contrary it has been clearly stated in the ground of detention the detenu was arrested on suspicion -. Thakker. Subject Index: Detention order -. Justice G. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association and others Respondents. 2006 SCCL. 216.V.the conclusion that the detenu may be released on BAIL cannot be ipsi-dixit of the detaining authority -.the High Court has recorded a finding that "It cannot be said that it was the applicant (Mulani) who was insisting that the wife.challenged in this appeal -. decided on 8/28/2006. 420. Srinivasa Reddy Appellant Vs. 1973 and the Rules and also the principles of law governing the Writ of Quo Warranto and the power of the Government to make a contractual appointment under Section 4(2) of the Act -. 2006 SCCL.G. 255. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.COM 685(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Union of India and another Respondents.COM 638(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 471. 218. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that though reference was made to co-accused's statement that was not relied upon for the purpose of detention -.provisions -interpretation of. 3(5) and 24 of MCOC Act and section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act -.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.the detenu himself made a confession and that was the main factor on which the order of detention was founded -.an FIR relating to an offence of possessing counterfeit stamps punishable under sections 120-B. and was charged under sections 120-B. 474 read with section 34 IPC. 259.the High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant. which is in the domain of the subordinate courts -.B. Justice K. He operates from two clinics -. 2006 SCCL. allegedly.as granted without application of mind -. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.BAIL -. State of Punjab Respondent.width and amplitude of the power of superintendence over subordinate courts and whether it authorizes the Inspecting Judges to transact any judicial work.the extraordinary power under Article 227 can only be used by the High Courts to ensure that the subordinate courts function within the limits of their authority. decided on 10/11/2006.P. 1039 of 2006) Jasbir Singh Appellant Vs. 1985 -. Justice AR.COM 774(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.COM 689(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.Section 37 -. 2006 SCCL. 973 of 2006)) Gajanand Agarwal Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: NDPS Act. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Dr. Justice P. Naolekar.SCC 294) has already noted -. Was it a silent spectator before the High Court? -. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.reconsideration of the applications for BAIL by the High Court in accordance with law keeping in view the principles set out.granting of -.G. Subject Index: Bail -.Section 37 of .COM 875(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. State of Orissa and others Respondents.advertisements were.this is a fit case for grant of BAIL to the appellant. 972 of 2006(with Criminal Appeal No. Justice S.Article 227 -.granting of BAIL by the Inspecting Judge -. decided on 9/18/2006.what is more baffling is that in the impugned orders there is no mention about the States' stand. 672 of 2006) State of Uttaranchal Appellant Vs. Subject Index: Constitution of India -. Lakshmanan.challenged -. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Respondent.granting of -the respondent herein is an Ayurvedacharya. decided on 11/10/2006. being issued by him in various newspapers claiming that medicines used by him were prepared from herbal plants collected from the Banks of Ganges and by application thereof patients suffering from epilepsy can be cured -. 2006 SCCL.the court dealing with the application for BAIL is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course -. elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly -. 2006 SCCL.K. it is not a fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Constitution of India. 2006 SCCL.having regard to the circumstance. Justice Markandey Katju. Justice S.appeal under -.appellant an Advocate by profession -. 2006 SCCL.Article 136 -. both by the High Court and this Court -.a person cannot be denied the right of being released on BAIL unless a clear case of application of the 1985 Act is made out.COM 1041(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1286 of 2006) Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Appellant Vs.the 1985 Act would prima facie has no application in view of the exception contained in Section 8 thereof read with the Rules -. 1973 -.B.Minister in Andhra Pradesh -. 1950 -. decided on 12/8/2006.Section 439 -rejecting the second BAIL application preferred by the appellant under Section 439 -. The appellant's BAIL application had been rejected earlier on several occasions by the High Court as well as by this Court -. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. but in a case of this nature when prima facie the provisions of the said Act are not found applicable particularly in view of the fact that he has been in custody for a period of more than two years now. 1172 of 2006) Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Appellant Vs. Jain. Justice K. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents.COM 930(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. CBI through its Director Respondent. 1287 of . Justice D. decided on 11/16/2006.in the case of Telgi. fit case for grant of BAIL. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. in our opinion.COM 994(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. He might have committed an offence which repulses out morality. voice recorded was that of the appellant -.appellant is an accused in a case under Sections 302/34/120B IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.no further application for BAIL will be considered in this case by any Court.the trial court shall ensure that the defence witnesses are examined on a day-to-day basis in accordance with a fixed time schedule so that the trial is completed as expeditiously as possible and the judgment is delivered soon thereafter. He may ultimately be found guilty even for commission of an offence under the 1985 Act.G. as already a large number of BAIL applications have been rejected earlier. decided on 12/8/2006.M. 490 of 2007)) Navjot Singh Sidhu Appellant Vs.07 and released on BAIL -. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr.G. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.appellant a former Police Commissioner and his Sub-Inspector Kakade (since dead).K.both arrested under the above Acts -. No. 1999 -appellants police officers -. Justice K. 2007 SCCL. 1860 -. the Kingpin of the Organised Crime Syndicate and the prime accused was not arrested and remained at large -. 218. Jain.moved application for suspending the order of conviction -.conviction by High Court under Section 304 Part II -.what needs to be considered is whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that the appellants are not guilty of the two offences.appeal by special leave -.rejected -. Justice G. 184 of 2007)) Dattatray Krishnaji Ghule Appellant andHitendra Manohar Vichare Appellant Vs.Sections 192. Jain. Raveendran.BAIL -. they have been charged with and further that they . The order of conviction passed against the appellant by the High Court on 1.2006) Gokul Bhagaji Patil Appellant Vs.COM 58(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice D. decided on 1/23/2007.the application moved by the appellant deserves to be allowed. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. incharge of the case. 2007 SCCL. Respondents. the appellant deserves to be released on BAIL. Justice R.the appellant has been in judicial custody for over three years. 217.1.K.P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.trial under -.COM 110(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice D. A. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr.2006 and the sentence awarded on 6. the maximum period of sentence contemplated under Section 24 of MCOCA. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. 1999 -application for grant of BAIL rejected by Special Judge -. 183 of 2007 (With Crl. Subject Index: Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.12.Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 -. neither sealed the said premises nor seized the machines. Patiala -challenged by State of Punjab -.special leave petition in which leave has been granted on 12.P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice K. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.acquittal by Sessions Judge.2006 are suspended and the conviction shall not be operative till the decision of the appeal. 1860 -.affirmed by High Court -.G.12. decided on 2/9/2007. they ensured that Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi.appeal -. 59 of 2007 (Cr. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents. 263(a) read Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act. State of Punjab and another Respondents.V. imposing penalty of withholding increments. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice K. it would adversely affect the morale of subordinate judiciary and no officer would be able to exercise this power freely and independently. reasons for prima facie concluding why BAIL was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence — The appellant is.H. Subject Index: Penalty -. Subject Index: Bail — granting of — by Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court — challenged — The court dealing with the application for BAIL is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course — there is a need to indicate in the order. 3987 and 3988 of 2006)) Imran Ali Petitioner Vs. Justice S. with cumulative effect -. Respondents. 2007 SCCL. . justified in her grievancesthat there has been misuse of the liberty and that the appellant has unnecessarily prolonged the trial — the order of BAIL passed by the High Court is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.) No. Habibullah And Anr. 2007 SCCL. decided on 3/19/2007.fit case for grant of BAIL to both the appellants.the punishment was clearly disproportionate to the lapse alleged to have been committed by him. Justice Arjit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. therefore. Kapadia.G. 2015 of 2006) Ramesh Chander Singh Appellant Vs. 204 of 2007) Kumari Suman Pandey Appellants Vs. Balakrishnan. decided on 2/14/2007.COM 143(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Jain.K. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 3986 of 2006 (With S. decided on 2/26/2007.are not likely to commit an offence under MCOCA while on BAIL -. 2007 SCCL. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr Respondents. Hon'ble Mr.COM 330(Case/Appeal No: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. (Crl) No. High Court of Allahabad & Anr. Respondents.COM 246(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.P.the appellant shall be immediately posted to the cadre of District Judge and paid all monetary benefits due to him as a consequence thereof -. The imposition of the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect also appears to be disproportionate to the alleged lapse -.a Sessions Judge was competent to grant BAIL and if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the officer for passing such an order. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon'ble Mr.L. Justice D. The investigation disclosed involvement of the appellant in the counterfeit stamp case. 1999 ('MCOC Act' for short) in regard to the said case -.the trend recently noticed. he was arrested on 7.K. Thakurdas and Ors. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 1954 — sentenced to imprisonment for life and were convicted in .COM 338(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Singh & Hon'ble Mr. Respondents.FIR relating to counterfeit stamps and stamp paper was registered -. 1860 — and under Sections 3(2) and (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — and Sections 3(2) and (5) of the Arms Act. (Crime). decided on 4/13/2007. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.S. Jain.2003.3. Subject Index: Bail application -. 555 of 2007) Gomti Appellant Vs.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.appeal -. Respondents.3.COM 441(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. and the concerned respondents are not entitled to BAIL — the respondents 1 to 5 — faced trial of alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147. 3(5) and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. Bedi.in any event such observations are bound to influence its mind -. Subject Index: Bail entitlement — the present appeal is by the complainant alleging that her husband has been killed by the respondent 1 to 5 on 12. Justice B. from 21. Justice D. Mumbai. 201.11. Justice R. to virtually write a judgment while disposing of an application for grant of BAIL must be discouraged.went on to record a very detailed reasoned order holding that prosecution has no merit -. decided on 3/22/2007.P.2003 -. Subject Index: Bail -.2002 to 17. 120(B) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2007 SCCL.9. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice H. 411 of 2007) Shridhar Sumant Vagal Appellant Vs.the appellant was working as a Joint Commissioner of Police. V. Raveendran. to fall under section 3(2) of the Act. 149. State of Maharashtra & Anr.the appellant has already been in jail for more than three years which is the maximum period of punishment that could be imposed under Section 24 of the MCOC Act.approval was granted for applying Sections 3(2). 148. Whether the involvement of Appellant goes beyond the scope of section 24 of the Act.1998. is an issue yet to be decided -order of High Court set aside and Special Court Pune directed to release the appellant on BAIL.granting of High Court felt persuaded to grant BAIL -. 2007 SCCL.rejected by the Bombay High Court -. 302. Justice K G Balakrishnan & Hon'ble Mr.a chargesheet was filed -. Telgi and his associates in any manner to carry on his illegal activities in Jail — the appellant has already been in Jail for more than three years and four months. they were acquitted of the charges relatable to Sections 25 of the Arms Act and Section 120 B IPC — the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. 1973 — Section 439 — petition under — rejected by the High Court — order challenged — appellant submitted that he was neither a member of the Telgi's crime syndicate nor had he helped A. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. decided on 4/17/2007. 574 of 2007) Sri Nanjappa Appellant Vs. Having regard to the nature of involvement alleged and the role attributed to the appellant. 201 and Section 3(2) and 5 of the SCST Act. 1961 -. 544 of 2007 Respondents. decided on 4/12/2007. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.COM 525(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.terms of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.COM 444(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.the impugned orders of the High Court are indefensible and are set aside. Justice R V Raveendran. and other sentences in respect of Sections 148. Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Bail -. Only broad features of the case are to be noted. 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2007 SCCL. and the period already spent by the appellant in Jail.granting of -. 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2006 and 256 witnesses have been cited. Justice CJI K G Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr.COM 448(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 304B. 525 of . Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta. However. The trial in the criminal case is likely to take a long time for completion. 302. Charges were framed only in August.the offences indicated were punishable under Sections 498A. prima facie throws doubt about alleged torture. With Criminal Appeal No. This is impermissible. 2007 SCCL. — fit case for grant of BAIL. 2007 SCCL. therefore. 543 of 2007) Gajanand Agarwal Petitioner Vs.the High Court has virtually written an order of acquittal by commenting on the evidentiary value of evidence on record. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. State of Orissa and Ors. Justice Dr. Elaborate analysis of the evidence is to be avoided -. is another conclusion which was not required to be given while dealing with the BAIL application -. Union of India Respondent. K.the reasoning given by the High Court that only the family members earlier did not lodge reports and. though accepted the evidence of recovery of the money from the two accused. Naolekar. Kapadia. Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 4/24/2007. Mehmood Hussain and Anr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. G. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Motor Vehicles Act and Bombay Police Act — 11 accused charged under — The Designated Judge.P. Indian Passport Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2371 of 2006) Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed Petitioner Vs. 2007 SCCL. for which they have been charged.2004) Abdulvahab Abdul Majid Shaikh and Ors. The accused have been rightly acquitted. Justice Dr.H.COM 602(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Appellants Vs. Criminal Appeal No. 365. Respondents. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 525 of 2004 would accordingly stand dismissed and the appellants would surrender to their BAIL bonds — the acquittal of A-6 and A-7 was correct. Justice P. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly — there is no evidence to show that these accused were in possession of any arms or ammunition during the commission of the crime. Justice S. Justice K. 384 read with Section 120-B of the IPC is only to be confirmed. held that the prosecution could not prove their identity and hence no importance was attached to the recovery effected by the police — The short question that arises for consideration is whether the confession given by A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan could be relied upon — the conviction of these three appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B. 1316-17/2004 are without any merits and dismissed accordingly. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.COM 591(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Criminal Appeal Nos. P. 342. decided on 5/18/2007. Subject Index: Bail — granted to the appellant — challenged in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court canceling the BAIL granted to the appellant by exercising . Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 5/7/2007.B. State of Gujarat Respondent. Respondents. Justice G. Mathur. Subject Index: Tada Act — Section 19 — State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal under the provisions of Section 19 — the prosecution has failed to prove that the Fiat Car which was found standing at the place of incident was purchased by accused Mushraf to link him with the other accused persons and with the conspiracy which is alleged to have been hatched by the accused. 2007 SCCL. 1860 — Tada Act. 166 of 1999) State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Siraj Ahmed Nisar Ahmed and Ors. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Mathur. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. 1860 — section 302 — conviction under — by Trial court and High Court deserves to the upheld — Markandey Katju — inability to agree with brother judge as to the reduction of death sentence to life sentence — this case falls within the category of rarest of rare cases and hence the appellant deserves death sentence — merely because a long lapse of time has occurred between the commission of the offence and the final ecision of this Court the death penalty cannot be imposed — it is not correct to say that only direct evidence is strong evidence while circumstantial evidence is weak evidence.C. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors.C. Respondents. They deliberately did not do so and filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. 2007. Subject Index: Bail — granting of — respondents accused who were granted BAIL under section 482 Cr. Both kinds of evidence can be strong in a given situation. Justice Markandey Katju.P. 352 and 506 — accused respondents could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC.COM 646(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice G. 1860 — proper to remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application for cancellation of BAIL.B. P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. The only requirement in circumstantial evidence is that the chain of links connecting the accused with the crime should be established beyond .P.power under Section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code — case involving alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 2007 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. or to delay the trial which will enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence. at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure. Justice A. ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice. 632 of 2007) Hamida Appellant Vs. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.K.COM 614(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. let the parties appear before the concerned court on 14th June. 2007 SCCL. 454 of 2006) Swamy Sharaddanandea @ Murali Monahar Mishra Appellant Vs. as is the case here. State of Karnataka Respondent. by High Court for offences under sections 324. in order to circumvent the procedure — ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 Cr. decided on 4/27/2007.C. Justice S. To avoid unnecessary delay.P. decided on 5/18/2007. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. be a rare incident — in a case of this nature 'life sentence' must be meant to be 'life sentence'. The only requirement in circumstantial evidence is that the chain of links connecting the accused with the crime should be . Both kinds of evidence can be strong in a given situation. decided on 5/18/2007. Sema and Hon'ble Mr.B. State of Chattisgarh and Ors. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.3 is accused of murdering a rival political leader while campaigning in the election — learned Chief Justice did not consider the nature and the gravity of the offence while considering the BAIL application of the accused — the findings recorded by the learned Chief Justice. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta. 454 of 2006) Swamy Sharaddanandea @ Murali Monahar Mishra Appellant Vs. Sinha :— Murder — of wife — for the purpose of usurping property is a rarest of rare crime statistically? — It cannot be conclusively said that murder of wife for usurping property is a particularly rarest of rare incident. He was in a dominating position over the deceased who had become dependant on him. the primary consideration is the nature and gravity of the offence. 2007 SCCL. State of Karnataka Respondent. and he took full advantage of this situation.COM 660(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.B.K. 651 of 2007) Satish Jaggi Appellant Vs. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju. Respondents. It could. Subject Index: S. 1860 — Sections 302/120B — application for BAIL rejected by the trial Court — confirmed by High Court — appeal — in granting or non-granting of BAIL in non-bailable offence. of course. including murder to achieve his object of grabbing huge amount of property of the deceased.COM 656(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. In the present case the respondent No. Markandey Katju :— inability to agree with brother judge as to the reduction of death sentence to life sentence — this case falls within the category of rarest of rare cases and hence the appellant deserves death sentence — merely because a long lapse of time has occurred between the commission of the offence and the final decision of this Court the death penalty cannot be imposed — it is not correct to say that only direct evidence is strong evidence while circumstantial evidence is weak evidence. 2007 SCCL. He had motive and opportunity for committing this ghastly crime. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. decided on 5/30/2007.reasonable doubt — The accused is an unmitigated and diabolical rogue who could go to any extent. virtually amounts to the regular trial pointing out the deficiency and reliability/credibility of prosecution evidence — the order of the learned Chief Justice granting the BAIL is not sustainable in law. Justice H. Justice S. He was in a dominating position over the deceased who had become dependant on him. The appeal of Arvind Kumar is.C. Justice D. The appellant shall move the appropriate Government for commutation of the custodial sentence — accused to remain on BAIL in the mean time.COM 699(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. in view of the difference of opinion in regard to sentence. He is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith and to suffer the remaining period of sentence. Jain. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.500/-.2000/with default stipulation — appeal — revision before the High Court — dismissed — sample of Khoya purchased — milk fat found was 19. He had motive and opportunity for committing this ghastly crime. dismissed. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.established beyond reasonable doubt — the accused is an unmitigated and diabolical rogue who could go to any extent.) was a matter within the discretion of State Government — the appellant has already suffered custody for more than three months.1 is on BAIL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. be deposited within a period of six weeks from today. The conviction and .7. Arvind Kumaraccused No. State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent. 452 of 2001) Arvind Kumar and another Petitioner Vs. 534 of 2001) Om Prakash Appellant Vs. decided on 6/5/2007. 2007 SCCL. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta. as fine.COM 789(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice R. 1973 (in short the 'Cr. accordingly. Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. This Court directs that a sum of Rs. and he took full advantage of this situation. 2007 SCCL.Matter referred to larger Bench.1 bys the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are maintained. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. State (NCT) of Delhi Respondent. Subject Index: Prevention of Adulteration Act. including murder to achieve his object of grabbing huge amount of property of the deceased.V. 1860 — Section 306 — Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 — Section 4 — conviction under — appeal — the presumption contemplated under Section 113A is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case and the accused has not led any evidence to rebut the said presumption — the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed upon Arvind Kumar – accused No. 1954 — Section 7(1) read with Section 16 accused found guilty of the offence — sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.P. decided on 7/24/2007.K.07% as against the minimum prescribed standard of 20% — learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the commutation of sentence under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1959 — the appellant was released on BAIL in another offence at Hyderabad on health ground.(c). Request for further remand was rejected and the appellant was sent to judicial custody — the stand of the State on the other hand was that there is a confessional statement of the accused recorded under Section 32 of POTA. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 122. The High Court apparently failed to notice that Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2003. alleging that a conspiracy was hatched by Mufti Sufiyan and Rasulkhan Party at Ahmedabad and Hyderabad to commit murder of Hindu leaders through boys by imparting them training in arms in Pakistan.COM 811(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 121. set aside. can be retracted. 123 of the Indian Penal Code.2004 and was remanded till 9.1288 of 2004 .2004. 27 and 29 of the Arms Act.2003 with DCB Police Station. however. 943 of 2007) Idrishan Yakubkhan Pathan Appellant Vs. decided on 7/27/2007.2004 he was arrested in connection with the present offence by the Gujarat Police. The complaint was filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120(B).11. Ahmedabad. Justice Arijit Pasayat . Justice Dr. It appears that the High Court permitted the appellant to take a proper proceeding seeking his release on BAIL so far as POTA Case No.10.sentence of second accused is. but it has to be done within a reasonable time — not fit case to grant BAIL.11. Subject Index: Bail — rejected — appeal — an FIR was lodged on 4. 2000 — 34(1) (4) — challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 34(1) (4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. if any.12 of 2003 is concerned. 121(A). There is no dispute that Criminal Appeal No. State of Gujarat Respondent. Thereafter on 30. decided on 7/17/2007. He was produced before Special POTA Court on 2.4. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2007 SCCL. 2000 — there seems to be some confusion about the factual position — The confusion arose before the High Court relating to the case numbers. It is the appellant who inspired young boys to take Jihad training in Pakistan. 2007 SCCL. Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. State of Gujarat Respondent. Haneefuddin Appellant Vs. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was any coercion for giving the confessional statement — there is no time statutorily fixed during which the confessional statement. 904 of 2007) Maulana Naseeruddin Mohd.COM 797(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.1288 of 2004 before the High Court related to POTA Case No. Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism Act. 1860 (in short 'IPC') and Sections 25(1) (b). Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Bail — granted by by a learned Single Judge — Rajasthan High Court challenged in this appeal — there is a need to indicate in the order. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.related to POTA Case No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2007 SCCL. Justice D. 1002 of 2007) Deepak Singchi Appellant Vs. Amin Respondent.P. Justice P.COM 849(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. The BAIL application can be considered after only he surrenders to custody. 1994 section 98(5) — the scope of Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.12 of 2003 2007 SCCL. BALASUBRAMANYAN. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents. 1973.H. decided on 8/13/2007. Subject Index: Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.2 shall forthwith surrender to custody because of cancellation of his BAIL.K. decided on 8/3/2007. Narendra K.COM 823(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Jain.COM 840(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. . 1994 which is in pari materia to Section 22A (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. reasons for prima facie concluding why BAIL was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence — the impugned order of the High Court is indefensible and the same is set aside.against order of granting BAIL to the accused — respondent's position to influence. 1954. 1065 of 2007) State of Gujarat Petitioner Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer Respondent. 5197 of 2005) Guljag Industries Appellant Vs. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the BAIL application — Needless to say the respondent No.C. Sudershan Reddy.K. induce or coerce must be taken into consideration seriously before granting anticipatory BAIL — Appeal allowed — Order granting anticipatory BAIL set aside — Directed the trial court to deal with regular BAIL appeal under section 439 Cr. 2007 SCCL. Justice S. decided on 8/3/2007. Justice TARUN CHATTERJEE and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Writ Petition — Habeas Corpus — SLP -. Justice B. Subject Index: Bail — granting of — to the respondent Inspector of Police — Challenged by State of Maharashtra — respondent submitted that the respondent was not holding such a responsible post as to be able to assist Telgi and his associates in the manner suggested by the prosecution and that the High Court has not erred in granting BAIL to him — not necessary. 1122 of 2007) Sudha Verma Appellant Vs. to interfere with that order and set aside the BAIL granted to the respondent. 135 of 2002 initially registered at Bund Garden Police Station.K.B. BAIL was granted primarily on the ground that the co-accused has been released on the bail and at the most the case is one under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal . Justice Altamas Kabir. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.R. 2007 SCCL. decided on 8/17/2007. Vashishtha Rambhau Andhale Respondents. G. G. Justice P.COM 862(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice CJI K. decided on 8/17/2007. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.COM 861(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Balasubramanyan.I. 65 in C.K. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. State of UP & Another Respondents. 1087 of 2007) State of Maharashtra & Others Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep Bhalchandra Sawant & Another Respondents. Pune for different offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3 and 24 read with Section 2(1)(a)(d) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act ('MCOCA') read with Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act — that there were no such acts of commission or omission on the side of the respondent and that it was a case where the respondent himself was only a subordinate officer not in a position to take some of the actions which are alleged to have been not taken by him — not necessary interfere with the order granting BAIL. Subject Index: Bail — granted — in a murder case — challenged in this appeal — challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granting BAIL to respondent No. Appellant Vs. Subject Index: Bail — granting of — challanged by CB9 by special leave — respondent arrested order stamp scam — general for the appellant contended The respondent is arrayed as accused No. decided on 8/24/2007. Justice Dr. Justice P. 2007 SCCL. Balasubramanyan.2-Dinesh Kumar. No.2007 SCCL. at this stage.COM 884(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. 1088 of 2007) C. Justice CJI K. The prayer for BAIL made by the respondent was rejected by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act).Code. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Subject Index: NDPs Act. Justice K. of poppy straw from the possession of the accusedrespondent. Crime No.2 was the alleged assailant who fired the gun and killed the deceased. 467. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. decided on 9/14/2007. 1223 of 2007) Union of India Petitioner Vs. The High Court by the impugned order accepted the prayer for BAIL on the ground that the recovery was not from the exclusive possession of the accusedrespondent and other members of the family are involved in the case. decided on 9/21/2007. The matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the BAIL application afresh keeping in view the principles of law. 420 read with section 120B IPC.196 of 2007 filed by the Appellant under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code is under challenge in this appeal — a FIR relating to counterfeit stamps and stamp-papers was registered as Crime No. rejecting Criminal Petition No. 265. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 471 to 475. on 16.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka. 1100/2002 was registered at Madiwala Police Station. Balakrishnan. in respect of offences punishable under sections 255 to 260. The impugned order is unsustainable and is set aside. Raveendran. On the basis of the investigation report of the Stamp Investigation Team (for short 'STAMPIT'). 545 of 2000 in the Upparpet Police Station. Jain. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. 1275 of 2007) Jaya Simha Petitioner Vs. V. against Abdul Karim Telgi. 468.10. Varanasi. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari Respondent. State of Karnataka Respondent. G. It was noted that the respondent had no criminal history — the expression used in Section 37 (1)(b) (ii) is 2007 SCCL. 1973 — section 439 — the order dated 27.COM 975(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.2002 for . 27A and 29 — charge under — grant of BAIL — challenged — allegation was that the respondent was found to be in possession of huge quantity of poppy straw. Bangalore. 15.2. Justice D. Strangely the conclusions.COM 970(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Bangalore. that there was no motive or there was a sudden quarrel appear to have been arrived at without any discussion and/or without reference to any particular material. 1985 — sections 8. It is the case of the prosecution that the raiding party seized nearly 400 Kg. 1860 and not Section 302 IPC — the High Court has not indicated as to what is the relevance of grant of BAIL to co-accused ignoring that the respondent No. 2007 SCCL. Jain. R. Telgi and others. Bangalore. there was possibility of their clothes being stained with blood rather than leaving trail of blood. the appellant contends that he was neither a member of the Telgi's crime syndicate nor had he helped A. The same is set aside. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.offences punishable under section 120B.3. and one Nanjappa (working as Asst.K. 1860 — section 302 read with section 34 — conviction under — since the accused did not claim to have suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he had collected blood stained earth from several places — the impugned judgment of the High Court directing acquittal of the respondents is clearly unsustainable. Bangalore. State of Uttaranchal & Others Respondents.2004. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1392 of 2007) Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Appellants Vs. CBI took up further investigation in the matter — the appellant herein who was working as the Senior Superintendent of Central Prison. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 15. . 1988 and sections 3. City Civil and Sessions Judge].COM 1002(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. the question of explaining the injuries on the accused in that sense did not arise — the trial court on analysing the evidence noticed that since the accused persons were dragging the dead body of the deceased to the house of the accused Ajit Singh alias Jeet Singh. 255 to 258. The order of the trial court is restored. 12.COM 1042(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 32 and 33 under supplementary charge-sheet filed in Crime No.K. Respondents who are on BAIL shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. Bangalore) were impleaded as accused Nos. 2007 SCCL. 4 and 25 of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act. 260 and 420 IPC read with section 63B of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 against the said A. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. 330331 of 2000) State of Punjab Appellant Vs. 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Telgi and his associates in any manner to carry on their illegal activities in Jail — the appellant has already been in Jail for about three years and nine months — direct the Special Judge [35th Addl. Mohinder Singh and Others Respondents. Superintendent of Central Prison. decided on 10/9/2007. 2007 SCCL. 2000 — while challenging the said order. to enlarge the appellant on BAIL. decided on 9/28/2007. K. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice.V. 1100/2002 alleging that they had committed offences punishable under sections 7. Subject Index: Non-bailable warrants — issuance of — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — appeal against judgement passed in Application under section 482 — the appellants had to file an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh issued a non-bailable warrant against the appellants on the basis of First Information Report under Sections 420/467 IPC filed by the respondents — the veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and the respondents can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The dispute in question is purely of civil nature and respondent no.3 has already instituted a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge. In the facts and circumstances of this case, initiating criminal proceedings by the respondents against the appellants is clearly an abuse of the process of the court — the powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles — even if all the averments made in the FIR are taken to be correct, the case for prosecution under sections 420 and 467 IPC is not made out against the appellants. To prevent abuse of the process and to secure the ends of justice, it becomes imperative to quash the FIR and any further proceedings emanating therefrom — as far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the BAILable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either BAILable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive — the impugned judgment and order of the High Court cannot be sustained. 2007 SCCL.COM 1045(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2007) Bishan Singh & Another Appellant Vs. The State Respondent, decided on 10/9/2007. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 147 and 308/149 — conviction under — before an accused can be held to be guilty under Section 308 IPC, it was necessary to arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof, namely, requisite intention or knowledge was existing. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that such an intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause culpable homicide is required to be proved. Six persons allegedly accosted the injured. They had previous enmity. Although overt-act had been attributed against each of the accused who were having lathis, only seven injuries had been caused and out of them only one of them was grievous, being a fracture on the arm, which was not the vital part of the body — the accused, could not be said to have committed any offence under Section 308 IPC. The same would fall under Sections 323 and 325 thereof — while imposing punishment in a case of this nature, the court is required to take into consideration the factors which may weigh with the court for taking a lenient view in the matter. The incident is of 1984. 23 years have elapsed. Appellants had all along remained on BAIL. It is not stated that they had ever misused the privilege of BAIL — it may not be proper for this Court to send the accused persons back to prison — while their substantive sentence may be reduced to the period undergone, they should pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) each; failing which they should undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. 2007 SCCL.COM 1054(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 12441245 of 2003) State of Delhi Petitioner Vs. Jitti Respondent, decided on 10/12/2007. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir. Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 — section 18 and 41 — conviction under — sentence — restricted to the period already undergone — from accused Jitti, 22 Kgs. of poppy straw powder was found whereas from other jute bag 23 Kgs. of poppy straw powder was recovered. Thus in all, 45 Kgs of poppy straw powder was found. Samples were taken from each jute bag and placed in two bags. The remaining poppy straw powder was kept in the same jute bags again. Usual seals were affixed. Samples were then sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The result disclosed that samples were found to contain poppy straw powder — taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances and factual scenario, namely, that the respondent-accused is in jail since about ten years, the High Court partly allowed his appeal and ordered to release him, the present appeal challenging the said decision is filed by the State, the respondent be released on BAIL as he was unable to furnish sureties — since the respondent had undergone sentence of almost ten years , he should be set at liberty unless he is required in any other offence. As and when the question raised in these appeals will come up for consideration in an appropriate case, it will be decided on its own merits. 2007 SCCL.COM 1083(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 14021409 of 2007) State of Maharashtra & Another Appellants Vs. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain etc. Respondents, decided on 10/10/2007. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. Subject Index: Indian Penal code, 1860 — sections 376, 343 read with section 34 and Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act — offence under — anticipatory BAIL — granted — appeal — the High Court ought not to have granted anticipatory BAIL to the respondents. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. 2007 SCCL.COM 1110(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2003) Sayed Abul Ala Appellants Vs. Union of India & Others Respondents, decided on 9/26/2007. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. Subject Index: Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 — detention under — period of detention is over — validity of the detention order — questioned — on the premise that unless the order of detention is set aside, a proceeding may be initiated against him under Chapter VA of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — no doubt antecedents of the detenu would be a relevant factor but the same by itself may not be sufficient to press and order of detention in as much as the principles which govern the field so as to enable the court to arrive at a decision that the order of detention can be validly passed despite the detenu being in custody are: if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he had a reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his being released on BAIL, and (b) that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities; and (3) it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing — the order of detention passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 2007 SCCL.COM 1139(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2007) Savitri Goenka Appellant Vs. Kusum Lata Damant and others Respondent, decided on 11/2/2007. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam. Subject Index: Bail application — the practice of converting applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to one for BAIL in terms of Section 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. has not been approved by this Court — direction was given for issuance of notice and service on the appellant which has not been done by respondent no.1-accused. The fact that the charge-sheet has been filed or BAIL has been granted is really of no consequence because of the fact that relief in the regular BAIL application appears to have been granted to respondent no.1 in view of the interim protection given by the High Court to the accused by the Sinha and Hon'ble Mr.B. Justice S. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.impugned order — in view of the aforesaid position. finally — that his medical condition required sophisticated life saving treatment which was only possible outside jail — held in the light of the facts that several BAIL applications filed by the appellant raising almost similar issues have been rejected no case for release on BAIL is made out — the demise of the appellant's father also does not ipso facto mean that he should be released on BAIL more particularly on account of the serious charges against him. In this situation. the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. 2007 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. decided on 12/3/2007. 1172 of 2006) Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Appellant Vs. CBI through its Director Respondent.COM 1224(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Subject Index: NDPS Act. Narcotics Control Bureau & another Respondents. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. there is nobody available to him to pursue the present case — that no inculpatory evidence has come on record justifying his continued incarceration — despite the orders of this Court from time to time. the trial was no where near completion and.2007 with the observations that the investigation was still in progress — the evidence so far collected showed that the appellant was in fact a facilitator between buyers and certain pharmacies either owned or controlled by him or associated with the two companies and that Section 79 of the Technology Act could not by any stretch of imagination guarantee immunity from prosecution under the provisions of the Act — the appellant and his associates were not innocent intermediaries or network service providers as defined under section 79 of the Technology Act but the said business was only a facade and camouflage for more sinister activity. Subject Index: Bail application — on the ground — that the appellant has been in custody for more than seven years and that his conduct in jail has been exemplary — that on account of the death of his father. 1985 — sections 37 and 67 — notice under — appellant a highly qualified individual set 2 Companies — filed application for BAIL the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that a prima facie case under section 24 and 29 made out — a BAIL application was thereafter filed by the appellant before the Special Judge which too was rejected on 28.5. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.B.COM 1230(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1659 of 2007) Sanjay Kumar Kedia Appellant Vs. Justice S. 2007 SCCL. decided on 11/30/2007. Section 79 will not grant immunity to an accused who has violated the . Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. 84 of 2008 with Civil Appeal No. Mahendergarh. 2007 SCCL. the respondent had not surrendered to the police but had appeared before the Magistrate with his lawyer of his own volition and was immediately granted BAIL. the appellants in response to the query in column 14.COM 31(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. since they had been acquitted of the charges brought against them. decided on 1/8/2008. had quite truthfully answered that they had not been convicted by any Court of any offence.K. therefore. Justice Altamas Kabir. 2008 SCCL. Justice C. Subject Index: Anticipatory BAIL granted by Punjab & Haryana High Court — no interference is called for. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju. Admittedly. 1608 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal No. Raninder Singh & another and Jagjit Singh Respondent (S). and were released on their personal bonds without being placed under arrest or being taken into custody. Justice A. 85 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. so that as per the respondent s understanding at no point of time was he taken into custody or arrested — as to the second of the two appeals.COM 1350(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. need to be answered in both these appeals is whether the manner in which they had appeared before the .14939)) State of Haryana & others Appellants Vs. With regard to column 13(A).provisions of the Act as this provision gives immunity from prosecution for an offence only under Technology Act itself — in the face of overwhelming inculpatory evidence it is not possible to give the finding envisaged under Section 37 of the Act for the grant of BAIL that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant was not guilty of the offence alleged. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. 2002.1607 of 2007) State of Punjab Appellant (S) Vs. The information disclosed by them was held to be suppression of the fact that they had been involved in a criminal case though the tenor of the query was not to that effect and was confined to the question as to whether they had been arrested — one of the common questions which. or that he would not resume his activities should BAIL be granted. the appellants who had been implicated in FIR 108 dated 26th May 2002 under Sections 323/324/34 Indian Penal Code of Police Station Nangal Chaudhary. appeared before the Ilaka Magistrate on 7th June. the respondent had not surrendered to the police but had voluntarily appeared before the Magistrate and had prayed for BAIL and was released on BAIL. Subject Index: Recruitment of constable — drivers — withholding of important information — in the first of the two appeals. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.K. therefore. decided on 11/19/2007. Dinesh Kumar Respondent. H.8.8. Subject Index: Customs Act.04 Anil was placed under arrest for having committed offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act.04 he was granted BAIL after he had deposited the duty — the compounding mechanism in Section 137(3) is to be allowed only in cases of doubtful benefit to the Revenue and to prevent needlessly proliferating litigation and holding up of collections. 683 of 2008) Union of India Appellant Vs. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr. could amount to arrest for the purpose of the query in Column 13A — what constitutes arrest and custody in relation to a criminal proceeding and the decision in respect thereof may have a bearing on the fate of the respondent in this appeal and that of the appellants in the other appeal in relation to their recruitment as Constable-Drivers in the Haryana Police. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.Magistrate and had been released without being taken into formal custody. Justice Altamas Kabir. On 16. Anil Chanana & another Respondents. 2008 SCCL. . Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr.521. 198 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 2008 SCCL.04 Anil voluntarily deposited customs duty amounting to Rs. State of Gujarat & others Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja & another Respondent(s). different versions given by Anil – in his statement under Section 108.COM 124(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Sudershan Reddy. Compounding cannot be allowed if there are apparent contradictions. It is the duty of the Compounding Authority to ascertain such contradictions before compounding is ordered. Justice B. 199 of 2008) Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Jayeshbhai @ Panchabhai Muljibhai Satodiya Appellant(s) Vs.72. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. High Court has upheld Order No.8.47. On 19. 1962 — on 12. decided on 1/25/2008.2/CCC(DZ)/SCM/2006 passed by Chief Commissioner of Customs (Compounding Authority) compounding the offences under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. decided on 1/29/2008. 1962 (for short. inconsistencies or incompleteness in the case of the applicant before the Compounding Authority. in his first BAIL Application and in his Application for compounding – itself disqualifies Anil from claiming the benefit of compounding under Section 137(3) of the 1962 Act. "1962 Act") for failure to declare dutiable goods in Customs Declaration Form and for having walked through the Green Channel with intent to evade the payment of duty and for making willful mis-statements and suppression of material facts. Justice S. In the present case.COM 110(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1962 — sections 132 and 135 (1)(a) — by the impugned judgment. if possible..2006. 2008 SCCL.2005 and for quashing the complaint. Sirpurkar.M. 1860 — sections 302. (1-a) 27 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act — 2 cases registered under — granting of BAIL — cancellation — the High Court has completely ignored the general principles. 143. another learned Judge has granted the BAIL by the impugned order which runs into 22 pages.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr.P. Balakrishnan. 148. Learned Magistrate took cognizance by order dated 30. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 1860 — section 120 B. conclude the same within the next six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.B. Panchal. Justice V. 1973 — section 200 – complaint filed against the appellant — for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under section 30(3) of the Karnataka Shops & Commercial Establishments Act — for violation of section 25 of the said Act.COM 137(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2008) Narayan Ghosh @ Nantu with Sankar Adeya Appellant Vs.206 of 2008) Som Mittal Appellant Vs. decided on 2/21/2008. 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act — trial under — application for BAIL — it would be for the trial court to consider and appreciate the evidence which comes before it in support of the plea of conspiracy and to arrive at the correct finding — BAIL not granted — medical help to be given to Sankar Adeya. 25(1) A. Justice S. for setting aside the said order dated 30. 201 IPC and sections. The High Court. is death or life imprisonment — in the second case. decided on 2/4/2008.V. State of Orissa Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.C. 307. K. 302/34 and section. The prosecution as well as defence counsel is directed to cooperate in conducting the trial on day to day basis.S. 149. if convicted. 120B. R. Justice J.251. 2008 SCCL. The findings recorded therein touch upon the merits of the case.G. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 341. but altered the offence in respect of which cognizance was taken as one .3. for grant of BAIL in a heinous crime of commission of murder in which the sentence.COM 213(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice CJI. by order dated 28. Government of Karnataka Respondent. The appellant filed a petition under section 482 of Cr. The learned Judge has proceeded as if an order of acquittal is being passed — it was not a fit case to grant BAIL to the respondents in this case as well — trial Court is directed to take up the trial on day to day basis and. 147. rejected the prayer for quashing the complaint. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.12. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr.2005 and directed issue of notice to the appellant.12. Balakrishnan.P. Justice CJI K. J. Th. J. that the power under section 482 of Cr. courts should only deal with the subject matter of the case and issues involved therein.Act 16 of 1976 — when the words 'rarest of rare cases' are used after the words 'sparingly and with circumspection' while describing the scope of section 482. and directions in paras 17 to 39 of the concurring judgment. recommendations. decided on 2/27/2008.P. Courts should desist from issuing directions affecting executive or legislative policy. those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'. He stated that he was rendering a separate opinion as he was not in agreement with the view expressed by Sema.1. R.G. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 399 of 2008) Akhilesh Kumar Singh Appellant Vs. They mean that the power under section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely. making it clear that the court was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the learned Magistrate shall decide the maintainability of the complaint at the time of framing of the charge uninfluenced by any observations made — in his concurring judgment. Jain.C.P. The said order of the High Court was challenged by the appellant in this appeal — the appeal was heard by a Bench consisting of H. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. D. 2008 SCCL. Raveendran and Mr. (Crl. He was of the view that the words 'rarest of rare cases' are used only with reference to the death penalty for an offence under section 302 IPC — however in paras 17 to 39 of his judgment. 1860 — sections 302 and 395 — read with section 120B — application for BAIL moved before the sessions court rejected — another moved — allowed — appeal — The . but with care and caution. only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice — this Court has repeatedly cautioned that while rendering judgments.2008 Sema. Katju. relating to anticipatory BAIL by an amendment to the Code by section 9 of U. order or direction of the Court. is not a decision. suffice it to say that they do not relate to the subject matter of the criminal appeal and being the expression of an expectation or hope by only one of the learned Judges constituting the Bench and not agreed to by the other. dismissed the appeal.K. J. JJ. though he agreed with the observation that the said power should be used sparingly.C.P.COM 235(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.G.K. State of U.C. should be used only in the "rarest of rare cases". or general directions unconnected with the subject matter of the case — in so far as the observations. By the main judgment dated 29.) & another Respondent. Justice D. the learned Judge expressed concern over the situation prevailing in Uttar Pradesh on account of omission of section 438 Cr.V.under section 30(1) read with section 25 of the said Act. agreed that the appeal should be dismissed without expressing any opinion on merits.Sema and Markandey Katju. the appellant would be at liberty to move the Sessions Court for BAIL and.P. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. 1860 — sections 406 and 114 — complaint petition filed — appellants granted BAIL subject to the condition that they would not leave India without permission of the Court — application for cancellation a BAIL filed — on an application .B. has been highlighted by this Court in Adri Dharan Das v. Justice P. filed by her — the directions regarding deputation of a senior police officer to monitor the investigation and/or recover the dowry articles to seize her passport stand deleted — the parameters for exercising of power under Section 438 Cr. need not have been given while dealing with an application under Section 438 Cr. (2005(4)SCC 303) — in case the appellant surrenders before the concerned court and moves for BAIL the application shall be disposed of expeditiously preferably on the date it is filed. Sathasivam. if for any reason.B.2003 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. decided on 3/14/2008. State of Punjab Respondents. Therefore the conclusion of the High Court that she was in a position to make the investigation ineffective does not have any foundation. Justice V. the trial is delayed beyond three months.502 of 2008) Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel with Ajitbhai Revandas Patel and another Appellants Vs. The directions for seizing the appellant's passport also could not have been given a petition under Section 438 Cr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.trial is being continued and most of the witnesses must have been examined by this time.C. filed by her. 2008 SCCL.COM 299(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice S. Rai Bareli is directed to complete the same within a period of three months and. without being influenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.C. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. State of W. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. the Sessions Judge.COM 320(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. Sirpurkar.C. 490 of 2008) Mohinder Kaur Appellant Vs.P. 2008 SCCL. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others with State of Gujarat and another Respondents. decided on 3/14/2008. The other directions given like recovery of dowry articles etc.P.S. except the non-cooperation of the accused. Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. the same would be considered by the Sessions Judge on merits and appropriate order shall be passed. If the trial is not already over. 1973 — section 438 — petition under filed before the High Court and order passed by single judge — challenged — the appellant was not serving as an inspector but was a constable who had retired about a decade back. But still it is a constitutional right. The procedures laid down for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously complied with — the interest of justice shall be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside.2145 of 1993 was filed against the appellants — gross injustice has been caused to the appellant. Panchal.filed by the 3rd respondent on 24th April. In the said order it was wrongly sated that the properties belonged to the appellants and husband of the 3rd respondent. his son and another. under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which was registered as Case No.2338 of 2006 was filed by her under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.M. Justice J. 2004 the District Magistrate was asked by the Leaned Metropolitan Magistrate to take further action in terms of Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by holding a public auction of the said properties. 427. They filed an application for cancellation of the said Standing Warrants — Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai is an Advocate. She initially filed a Complaint Petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Another case. It was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. It has since been dismissed for default. 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. She filed a large number of cases against her husband and in-laws. Respondent No. which is still pending. 420. By an order dated 5th January. Another criminal case was initiated by her against appellant No. 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. being No. Baroda. 2008 SCCL. Ahmedabad. whereas in fact Appellant No. Pankaj Verma and others Respondents. She initiated another criminal proceeding against the appellants and their family members under Sections 323.1 alone was the owner thereof — appellant and her husband returned to India. being Case No. Another case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code being Case No.1662 of 1996. decided on 3/3/2008. the same proceeding has also been dismissed as withdrawn. and Hon'ble Mr. forgetting the human rights of the appellant. Justice Arijit Pasayat. She did not deserve such harsh treatments at the hands of the High Court. 1998 the husband of the appellant was declared an absconder and a public proclamation was issued in terms of Section 82(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure attaching her properties if she did not present before the Learned Magistrate within 30 days from the issuance of the said publication — on their failure to remain present within a period of 30 days their properties were subjected to order of attachment under Section 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 428 of 2008) Rekha Patel Appellant Vs.COM 327(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 452. far less the funadamental right of life and liberty conferred on an accused in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India — the right of property is no longer a fundamental right. .47 of 1996 under Section 406.2. 504.3 speaks of her own human rights. Apart from constitutional right it is also a human right. and accused no.P.P. State of Bihar & others Respondents. Justice S.2000 at about 8. The writ petition was filed on 1. after surrender of accused and rejection of his BAIL application. 2008 SCCL. 1961. one abraded contusion and four lacerated wounds of different dimensions on various parts of the body which could not have been caused by iron rods — there was complete non-application of mind and nonconsideration of the relevant aspects.C. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. 504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code. has no application to the State of U. State of U.3.COM 408(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. By the impugned order dated 7. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. decided on 3/13/2008. By the impugned order the Division Bench accepted the prayer and granted BAIL to the respondent no. The High Court noted that the allegation was that the incident took place on 9.Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 226 — petition under — challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court passed on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution — complaint filed by Appellant under — sections 498A. the protection of the nature granted by the High Court cannot be given — the respondents had moved for BAIL and have been granted BAIL by the learned Sessions Judge concerned — this Court declines to interfere in the appeal. but have considered it necessary to indicate the correct parameters so that the mistake committed by the High Court is not repeated.11. Sathasivam. Respondent Nos.2 and his two sons assaulted Shiv Kumar — mercilessly with iron rods and he succumbed to the injuries — the only stand taken was that the ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased included three contusions.2006.R. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. and another Respondents. decided on 4/4/2008. 323.I. and for stay of arrest pending the disposal of the writ petition. 1860 — sections 302 and 506 — conviction under — challenging the conviction appeal has been filed and simultaneously prayer for being released on BAIL during the pendency of the appeal was filed.1 to 6 filed a writ petition for quashing the F.11.m. as noted in Adri Dharan Das's case (supra). .30 p. 604 of 2008) Azhar Sah Appellant Vs. 1860 and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.COM 383(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.2006 the High Court declined to accept the prayer for stay of arrest of the respondents — presently Section 438 Cr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 481 of 2008) Khilari Appellant Vs.2.B. 2008 SCCL. Even otherwise. COM 415(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 4 who caused injuries to the deceased or was the only person who was responsible for causing injuries resulting in death of Aseem Sah — appeal dismissed. 4 for grant of BAIL and he was accordingly granted BAIL by the High Court. 2008 SCCL. State of Bihar Respondent. Aggrieved by the said order. the appellantcomplainant is before this Court by way of this appeal by special leave — it cannot be said with certainty at this stage that it was respondent No. 2008 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. who later on succumbed to injuries. nephew of the complainant. Justice Markandey Katju.COM 475(Case/Appeal No: Motion Case (civil) 6016 of 2007) Padma Charan Patra Appellant Vs. at this stage this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the High Court and that of the Sessions Court whereunder the accused-appellants were not released on BAIL.5.2006 while granting BAIL to the petitioner — some of the co-accused approached the High Court and obtained BAIL on the same terms and conditions as was granted by this Court and subsequently they have also obtained relaxation of the first two conditions from the High Court — first two conditions relaxed. . Subject Index: FIR — no infirmity — it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated as the other party was the attackers and in the process of their attack five persons died and a number of other persons were seriously injured — the accused-appellants were named as the persons who had caused serious injuries to Ajay Sharma. Naoleker. Subject Index: FIR — BAIL — granting of — there is also the version of the eye-witnesses that the attack was made on Aseem Sah (since deceased) by different persons. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. 603 of 2008) Abdul Ghaffar & Anr. When the appellants have been named in the FIR which was lodged immediately after the incident. decided on 4/15/2008. the High Court was of the view that the case was made out by respondent No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Bail — application for relaxation of the conditions of BAIL enforced by order dt.Justice P.12. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Naoleker. Justice P.P. State of Orissa Respondent. On the cumulative assessment of these facts. etc Appellant Vs.B. decided on 4/4/2008.P. Justice S. State of Gujarat Respondent.P. 739 of 2008) Dinesh M. Justice Arijit Pasayat & P. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr. 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 368. Justice Aftab Alam. That being so. 740 of 2008) Dr. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 — section 439(2) — order of cancelling the BAIL granted to the appellant challenged — once it is found that BAIL was granted on untenable grounds. 120B. The stand that there was no supervening circumstance has no relevance in such a case — irrelevant materials have been taken into account and/or relevant materials have been kept out of consideration. 201. (Crime). Sathasivam and Mr. By our order dated 08. 197. same can be cancelled.N.COM 507(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. The said order is made absolute till the appeal is finally decided by the High Court. while issuing notice.) Appellant Vs.I.2008 SCCL. Justice Dalveer Bhandari. 1973 — section 439(2) — cancelling the BAIL in terms of section 439 (2) — the application under Section 439(2) was filed by the State of Gujarat through Investigating Officer. against which the present appeal by grant of special leave has been filed. 1950. This Court on 08.COM 511(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.01. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 420.2007 — for the offences punishable under Sections 302. 193. 364. Learned Single Judge admitted the appeal but refused to grant BAIL to the appellant. C. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Gandhinagar for cancellation of BAIL granted to the appellant by order dated 5.2008. Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act — sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) — conviction under — appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi along with an application for BAIL under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1860 and under Sections 25 (1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. decided on 4/28/2008. 671 of 2008) Siddharth Jain Appellant Vs.2008. Justice Aftab Alam. 2008 SCCL.10. Justice Arijit Pasayat & P. Narendra K Amin Appellant Vs. the order of granting BAIL to the appellant was certainly . granted interim BAIL to the appellant — appellant deserves to be released on BAIL during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Sathasivam and Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. decided on 4/16/2008. (S. appellant was given interim BAIL. 2008 SCCL.D. State (NCT) of Delhi through Commissioner of Police Respondent. 365. State of Gujarat and another Respondents.01. decided on 4/28/2008.COM 487 (Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. The appeal is dismissed. 179 of 2007) Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 523 /2008 @SLP (Crl.A. decided on 5/12/2008. the sentence imposed and several other similar factors need to be considered by the Court. The fact that accused was on BAIL during trial is certainly not a relevant factor — the impugned order in each case is indefensible and deserves to be set aside — the High Court had not applied correct principles it would be proper for the High Court to re-consider the matter and for that purpose the matter is remitted to the High Court. .A. 1973 — section 389 — application under for suspension of sentence and release on BAIL — this is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 389 of the Code.A.) No. the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted him under Section 302. Thakker. Jain. Court is of the view that no case has been made out by the applicant-appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL. decided on 3/24/2008. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.) No.) No. Subject Index: Bail — granting of challenged — the parameters to be observed by the High Court while dealing with an application for suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL have been highlighted by this Court in many cases — it is true that the parameters to be applied in cases where life or death sentence is imposed. 529 /2008 @SLP (Crl.Justice C. 528 /2008 @SLP (Crl.K. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth Respondent.M. and Hon'ble Mr. 7159-7162/2007) (With Crl. 2008 SCCL.COM 556(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 7157/2007) (With Crl. Sathasivam. 8114/2007)) State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. But. 2008 SCCL. the gravity of the offence. Justice P. 522 /2008 @SLP (Crl.) No.A. IPC and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life — keeping in view the seriousness of offence. the manner in which the crime as said to have been committed and the gravity of offence. Needless to say the High Court shall consider all the relevant aspects and pass orders in accordance with law. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. Justice D. 524-527 / 2008 @SLP (Crl.COM 512(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 520-521 of 2008 (With Crl. 7158/2007) (With Crl. Though the trial Court has acquitted the applicant-accused for the offences with which he was charged. may not be applicable to other cases. State (NCT of Delhi) Respondent.vulnerable. 7164/2007) (With Crl. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Justice Mr.) No.A. Panful Nessa Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr.901 of 2008) Sureshchandra Ramanlal Appellant Vs. Miraj Ali and others Respondents. 471. 1860 — sections 406. the same shall be considered in its proper perspective by the concerned Court. Justice J.2008 SCCL. If any application for BAIL is made. Panchal. the High Court completely lost sight of the fact that in the charge sheet filed respondents 1 to 9 were shown as absconders — let the respondents appear before the concerned Court where the trial is in progress. There was not even consideration of the merits of the case. decided on 5/15/2008. 473(a) and 120B of IPC read with section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act — appeal directed against judgment — prayer made by the appellant to enlarge him on anticipatory BAIL — having regard to the health of the appellant. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 7/18/2008. 2008 SCCL. By so observing.C. 420. Sathasivam. Subject Index: Bail — cancelling the BAIL granted to the appellants— by the impugned order the learned Single Judge directed cancellation of BAIL granted to the present appellants while holding that the two others being ladies there was no need to cancel the BAIL granted to them — though various points were urged in support of the appeal primarily it was submitted that no reasons have been given for canceling the BAIL — when a person to whom BAIL has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence . 1035 of 2008) Smt.COM 762(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the appellant is enlarged on anticipatory BAIL subject to certain conditions. 439. 409.M. The High Court was clearly in error by holding that there was no material to show that the respondents 1 to 9 were absconders. Justice Tarun Chaterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Md. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. Shobha Devi and another Respondents. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. State of Gujarat and another Respondents. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. 1113 of 2008) Manjit Prakash and others Appellants Vs.COM 697(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.P. 2008 SCCL. 1973 — section 482 — jurisdiction under — exercise of — the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot be extended to grant of BAIL in the manner done. Justice P. Subject Index: Cr. decided on 7/9/2008.COM 828(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2008 SCCL. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. On that count alone. the Court dealing with an application for cancellation of BAIL under Section 439 (2) can consider whether irrelevant materials were taken into consideration — since the High Court has not indicated any reasons for directing cancellation of BAIL. the impugned order cannot be maintained and is set aside. The BAIL bond of the appellant who is on BAIL shall stand discharged. The matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the matter afresh and dispose of the application filed. Subject Index: Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act. in essence. 174 of 2001) Asraf Ali Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. BAIL granted can be cancelled.or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial. Justice Altamas Kabir. the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. Rejection of BAIL stands on one footing. decided on 3/3/2008. The circumstances which were relied upon by the trial Court to find the accused guilty were not specifically brought to the notice of the accused. Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande Respondent. 2006 in Writ Petition — as a general rule. 2008 SCCL. Therefore.COM 858(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. The conviction recorded stands set aside. but cancellation of BAIL is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to — even though the reappreciation of the evidence as done by the Court granting BAIL is to be avoided. Justice P. decided on 7/17/2008. 1980 — order of detention passed by Commissioner of Police — set aside by the High Court Partly — the present appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra and others against the sole respondent (original petitioner) against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) on October 17. an order of detention passed by a Detaining Authority under the relevant 'preventive detention' law cannot be set aside by a Writ Court at the . State of Assam Respondent. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. his examination under Section 313 of the Code was rendered an empty formality. 417 of 2008) State of Maharashtra and others Appellants Vs.COM 878(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Sathasivam. 1860 — Section 304(1)— Conviction by the Sessions Judge — Single Judge altered the conviction — no witness has stated that on the date of occurrence the accused had caused severe injury to the deceased by assaulting him on the head from behind. 2008 SCCL. 404 and 405 of 2000) Baijnath Jha Appellant Vs. The Court must be conscious and mindful of the fact that this is a 'suspicious jurisdiction' i. Sita Ram and another Respondents. Patna City stand quashed.1 was released on BAIL on 7. 2008 SCCL. 1910 — the respondent No. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.V.COM 949(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.1994 and on 11. 1973 — section 482 — application under — dismissal by High Court — challenged — allegation against respondent No. the High Court has rejected the application of the . 1444 of 2008) Jonathan Nitin Brady Appellant Vs. The cases at hand fit in with category (7) of Bhajan Lal's case — the appeals are allowed and the proceedings in complaint case No.COM 1165(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.1 filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate alleging that the appellant in each case and aforesaid Ravindra Kumar Singh had demanded illegal gratification. First Class.2. Interestingly. No reason was shown before the High Court as to why the complainant chose not to proceed and one of the four persons initially named. 1973 — section 438 — by the impugned order.1994 respondent No. 403 of 2002 With Crl. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.1 was that he had committed theft of electricity attracting penal consequences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. decided on 6/12/2008. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure code.40 of 1994 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. State of West Bengal Respondent. Nos. 1860 and Section 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. does not fall within the category of exceptional cases and the High Court committed an error of law in setting aside the order of detention at the pre-execution and prearrest stage.pre-execution or pre-arrest stage unless the Court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances specified in Alka Subhash Gadia. A. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta. based on vague assertions and were initiated with malafide intents and constitute sheer abuse of process of law.1.e. jurisdiction based on suspicion and an action is taken 'with a view to preventing' a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to certain activities enumerated in the relevant detention law — a detenu cannot ordinarily seek a writ of mandamus if he does not surrender and is not served with an order of detention and the grounds in support of such order — the case on hand. decided on 9/10/2008. Naolekar. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. no date of such demand was indicated in the complaint — the proceedings instituted were malafide.P. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Justice R. m. During the course of regular morning show called "Morning No.COM 1028(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. the appellant discussed one Mr. 1860 — sections 395 and 396 — three appeals have a common matrix and judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.1" — that was broadcasted only in New Delhi from 7-11 a.COM 1166(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. By the impugned judgment. it came to the appellant's knowledge through media reports that sentiments of a certain section of the public in West Bengal were purportedly hurt given to misinterpretation of the above-said discussion on the said show — in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances narrated it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled for the grant of anticipatory BAIL — the appellant can be interrogated by the Investigating Officer without taking him in custody. any leniency in sentence would not only be undesirable but also would be improper. decided on 9/10/2008. the High Court rejected the application of the appellant for grant of BAIL filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Durg.1997. State of Bihar Respondent.. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. a channel owned by Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Limited.2007. decided on 8/13/2008. 1449 of 2008) Anwar Ali Appellant Vs.appellant for the grant of pre-arrest BAIL filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — the appellant works as a Radio Jockey at New Delhi with the Radio Channel `Red FM 93. judged from any angle these appeals have no substance and . The sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life was altered to seven years rigorous imprisonment — it is a serious case of dacoity. 1973 — section 439 — petition under — by the impugned order. Justice R.09. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. State of Chhatisgarh Respondent. Prashant Tamang's victory in the Tele-Series called "Indian Idol" telecasted on Sony Entertainment Television channel — on 25. for offences punishable under Sections 420. 1179 and 754 of 2001) Arjun Mahto Appellant Vs.V.09.5'. 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code — it is a fit case where the appellant deserves to be released on BAIL 2008 SCCL. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta. 753 of 2001 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 2008 SCCL. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Therefore. 1860 to Section 395 IPC. The passage of time cannot wash away gravity of offence. the State's appeal was dismissed while in he case of present appellants their conviction was altered from Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. on 24. 327/2007 registered in Police Station. 467. are dismissed — the accused persons who are on BAIL, shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of their sentence. 2008 SCCL.COM 1171(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6346 of 2008) Joginder @ Jindi Appellant/Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 9/8/2008. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Harjit Singh Bedi. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 438 — since the petitioner alleges that the offences charged are BAILable offences, the High Court was not justified in holding that custodial interrogation was necessary. Section 438 Cr.P.C. in terms relates to non-bailable offences. Therefore, a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to BAILable offences is mis-conceived — if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular BAIL, the same shall be considered uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court. 2008 SCCL.COM 1172(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2001) State of U.P. Appellant Vs. Awdhesh Respondent, decided on 9/9/2008. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 396 — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent for offence punishable under Section 396 — the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the said judgment; but he was acquitted of the charge relatable to offence punishable under Section 314 IPC — doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case — forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice — though the judgment is not happily worded and some of the reasonings are not legally supportable but the ultimate conclusion is a possible view. That being so, this Court decline to interfere in this appeal which is dismissed. The BAIL bond executed in the present case by the respondent shall stand discharged. 2008 SCCL.COM 1198(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2004 With Crl. A. Nos. 100, 99, 98, 629, of 2004 and 785 of 2005.) Viswanathan Appellant Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, T.N. Respondent, decided on 4/29/2008. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 376 (2) (g) — conviction under — appellant sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years — Explanation-I one appended to the said provision clearly states that the persons who have common intention to commit the said offence would also be liable in terms of Section 376(2) (g) of the Act. The common intention of all the accused need not be supported by the fact that each one of them took part in actual commission of the offence. The very fact that they came on cycles and dashed with the cycle of PW7 would clearly show that they had a common intention to commit the offence. If they had the common intention of committing the offence, they although were charged under Section 376 in general, they could be convicted also under Section 376(2)(g) as the latter is merely a graver form of the offence of rape as defined in Section 375 of the Code — the appeals preferred by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are dismissed whereas the appeals preferred by accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are allowed. They are on BAIL. Whereas accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are directed to surrender, accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 are discharged from their BAIL bonds. 2008 SCCL.COM 1254(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1278 of 2001) Murugan and another Appellants Vs. State Rep. by Public Prosecutor Madras, Tamil Nadu and another Respondents, decided on 9/30/2008. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 307 and 307 read with section 109 — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Principal, Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The appellant faced trial along with one Velliah for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 307 and 307 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — though the trial Court found that the prosecution has not established the case, in appeal filed by the State it was held by the High Court that the prosecution established the accusations against the appellants. But the acquittal so far as the Velliah A3 is concerned, the High Court confirmed the acquittal — a person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise particular to each case — the concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof — when the factual position is analysed in the background of the conclusions arrived at by the High Court, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court's judgment is correct. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants who are directed to be released on BAIL by order dated 10.12.2001, shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence. 2008 SCCL.COM 1300(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1620 of 2008) Sunil Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 10/16/2008. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — conviction under various offences — several accused sentenced to undergo custodial imprisonment and fine with default stipulation — the High Court dismissed the appeal so far as the present appellant is concerned, this Court is not concerned with the other appeals — the prosecution has failed to establish the accusations so far as the present appellant is concerned. He is acquitted of the charges and his conviction is set aside. The BAIL bonds executed by him for giving effect to the order of BAIL passed by this Court's order dated 25.1.2008 shall stand discharged. 2008 SCCL.COM 1314(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2008) Lokesh Singh Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondents, decided on 10/21/2008. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 and 120B — the accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench granting BAIL to the respondent No.2 who is an accused — the High Court was not justified in granting BAIL to respondent No.2. The order granting BAIL is set A3 did not prefer appeal before the High Court and A2 has also not filed any appeal before this Court — the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The respondent No. the benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him.2 who was released on BAIL shall surrender to custody forthwith. T. Learned District and Sessions Judge. By Inspector of Police. Appellant who is on BAIL pursuant to the order dated 21. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1860 — sections 302 read with section 34 — conviction by the trial court — upheld by the Madras High Court — so far accused A1 is concerned. A3 did not prefer appeal before the High Court and A2 has also not filed any appeal before this Court — the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.COM 1338(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Appellant who is on BAIL pursuant to the order dated 21. State Rep. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice.1. decided on 10/13/2008. has held the appellant and the co-accused guilty — another person Subbiah-A3 was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. 967 of 2001) Arumugam Appellant Vs. Tirunvelveli. if any — where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Tirunvelveli. Nadu Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. Learned District and Sessions Judge. By Inspector of Police. has held the appellant and the co-accused guilty — another person Subbiah-A3 was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. and the co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.1. that circumstance must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue advantage has been taken. 2008 SCCL. decided on 10/13/2008. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 2008 SCCL.aside. If the weapon used or the manner of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion.2001 shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence. State Rep.2001 shall surrender to custody . Justice Arijit Pasayat and Dr. T. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Dr.COM 1320(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Nadu Respondent. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 967 of 2001) Arumugam Appellant Vs. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. and the co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 1860 — sections 302 read with section 34 — conviction by the trial court — upheld by the Madras High Court — so far accused A1 is concerned. Munna was also tried for an offence under Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act.2% as against the permissible limit of 1. Secretary Respondent. Subject Index: A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. That is not the way to dispose of a . The trial court found the appellant guilty.K.forthwith to serve remainder of sentence.COM 1380(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. In appeal. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1954 — sections 7 and 16 — prosecution under — chilly powder — sample taken — sent to the public analyst and it was found that percentage of Ash insoluble in dilute HCL was at 4. Thakker and Hon'ble Mr.P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. The State shall take immediate steps to arrest him by issuing Non-bailable warrants against him and arrest him for undergoing the rest of the sentence. A criminal revision was filed before the High Court which was admitted. if any — where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual manner. decided on 11/4/2008. Justice V. Sirpurkar. 2008 SCCL. the revision petition was disposed of by a cryptic and practically non-reasoned order.35%. But on the day the appeal was admitted. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 55 of 2002) Govardhan Dass Bansal Appellant Vs.S. State (Delhi Administration) Th. Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. 1st Additional Sessions Judge Chhattarpur. that circumstance must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue advantage has been taken. State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent(s). M. Justice D.K. If the weapon used or the manner of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion. Justice Arijit Pasayat. decided on 10/22/2008.COM 1396(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1860 — sections 302 — conviction under — appellant herein challenges his conviction for an offence under Section 302 for having committed murder of one Chhota S/o Gariba. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Initially three accused persons were tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as also under Section 302 simpliciter — in addition to the above charge under Section 302. convicted the appellant under Section 302 Simpliciter and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life while acquitting him from the charges under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act whereas the other two co-accused were convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC no merit in the present appeal and it is dismissed — the appellant was released on BAIL during the pendency of his appeal. 2008 SCCL. the conclusion of the trial court was upheld. the benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta. 1025 of 2006) Munna @ Pooran Yadav Appellant(s) Vs. only 2. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Superintendent. New Delhi.P. 2. the rigours of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act relating to grant of BAIL may not be justified — the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly.revision petition which has been admitted. 2008 SCCL. it should not have been admitted. decided on 11/7/2008. and another Respondents. If there was no substance. The order dated 15. The appeal is allowed.COM 1409(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Narcotic Central Bureau Respondent. Justice C. Justice Arijit Pasayat.B. the Court obviously felt that there was some arguable point.e. Mr.6%.COM 1411(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. alleged to have been recovered from the coaccused persons could be said to be intermediate quantity and. Even. 1985 — BAIL — cancellation of — whether an order of BAIL granted in favour of the appellant herein could have been directed to be cancelled on the basis of a report of analysis of the articles recovered from him containing `heroin' is the core question involved herein — the miniscule percentage of heroin which has been found. Section 37 of the Act — whether the contraband found came within the purview of the commercial quantity within the meaning of Section 2(viia) or not is one of the factors which should be taken into consideration by the courts in the matter of grant or refusal to grant BAIL. The same shall continue till the disposal of the revision by the High Court — by granting this interim protection. 1754 of 2008) Ratan Kumar Vishwas Appellant Vs. C) Revision Petition — disposal — by a cryptic and practically non-reasoned order. this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. decided on 11/7/2008. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Subject Index: NDPS Act. Justice S. 2008 SCCL.. 1748 of 2008) Sami Ullaha Appellant Vs. Thereafter dismissed it without indicating any reason or basis is certainly not the proper way of disposal — impugned order of the High Court set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.2005 cancelling the BAIL is set aside and the revision application filed in the High Court stands allowed. Justice Cyriac Joseph. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. according to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory.03. State of U.K. would not come within the purview of commercial quantity — the general principles of grant of BAIL are not applicable in a case involving the Act. .6% of the sample sent was found to be containing heroin — the quantity. i. The power of the court in that behalf is limited. B) Interim Protection — the appellant is continuing on BAIL pursuant to the order passed by this Court. thus. thus. Since it was admitted. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. In reply to the show cause notice the representative of the respondent (importer) submitted that the duty for filling in the Declaration Form ST 18A was the responsibility of the transporter and the consignor and on account of mistake on the part of the transporter the said Form was not duly filled in. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. Learned Additional Sessions Judge. Respondent(s). Justice D.COM 1426(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. Subject Index: Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.B. Declaration Form ST 18A for goods loaded in the vehicle.H. bilties. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.O. penalty at the rate of 30% to the tune of Rs.Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. Jain.000/-. Appellant-Ratan Kumar Vishwas has filed an Appeal No. 1994 — section 78(5) — appeal by the Department against the judgment and order — passed by the Rajasthan High Court in S. 5865 of 2008) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Appellant(s) Vs. The A. came to the conclusion that goods were imported without the Declaration Form ST 18A which amounted to violation of Section 78(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Show cause notice was issued. Delhi. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. decided on 7/6/2008. Hence penalty was correctly levied under Section 78 (5) of the 1994 Act.85. .2. Subject Index: NDPS Act. Justice S. 6636 of 2006 questioning his conviction the offence punishable under Sections 27A and 29 — the High Court has dealt with the factual position in great detail to conclude that the parameters of Section 37 are not fulfilled to warrant grant of BAIL by suspension of sentence. Sudershan Reddy. It is open to him to move the appropriate authorities for providing such medical treatment as is needed. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter — the appellant is ailing and needs treatment. 1999 a truck coming from Delhi was intercepted. 1995. Justice B. Fast Track Court No.85. 1994 read with Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules.came to be imposed — the details required were never supplied. on the price of the goods of Rs. 1985 — sections 27A and 29 — conviction under — appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of rupees two lacs with default stipulation. Mayapuri. 2008 SCCL.K. Kanpur Nagar has found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him — challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL. 1. Navyug Appliances (India). When the vehicle was stopped for checking at the check-post the driver was directed to produce bills. Hence.500/. The statement of the driver was recorded. M/s. The name of the consignor in was M/s.114 of 2005 setting aside the penalty under — on March 30. 122. Subject Index: NDPS Act. Nasimuddin Respondent. the order granting BAIL is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.COM 1431(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. . It was pointed out that it was not only the statement recorded under Section 32 of POTA but other factors like recovery. 1167 of 2001) N. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Manipur. Justice Arijit Pasayat and P. 1973 and Section 49 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Justice P. NDPS. 2002 was filed — this Court has categorically held that the confession. There was recovery of country made revolver and live cartridges. Sathasivam. 123 and sections 3(1)(A)(B). Md.R. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Sathasivam. Mon Appellant Vs. 21(2)B.2008 SCCL. decided on 11/11/2008. State of Gujarat Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 1985 — section 37 — BAIL under — recovery of 123 kgs. of POTA and sections 25(1)B. upholding the order passed by the Learned Special Judge. Justice P. His link with the absconding accused Rasul and Mufti Sufian is clearly established. 3(3) 4.COM 1442(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. decided on 5/16/2008. decided on 11/11/2008. 1950 — trial under — an application in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 121A. @ Gulal Shaikh Appellant Vs. if any.COM 1430(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Complaint case No. State of Gujarat Respondent. C. therefore. by which BAIL was granted to the respondent — the High Court seems to have completely overlooked underlying object of Section 37 — since the Trial Court and the High Court have not kept these aspects in view. 1771 of 2008) Mahmood Rajasa Saiyed Appellant Vs. 1860 — sections 120-B. Imphal Bench. of Ganja — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court. under Section 32 of POTA made by the co-accused is not admissible. 1770 of 2008) Gulam Mohd. and antecedents were also taken into consideration — it would be proper for the trial Court to conclude the trial as early as possible. there was no material before the trial Court to reject the prayer for BAIL — the role of the accused is clearly established. Sathasivam. 27 and 29 of Arms Act. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Imphal. 22(3)(B). 20. 2008 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 32 of 2000. The appeal is allowed. 2008 SCCL. in Crl. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. It was submitted that there was retraction from the confession and. 2002 — the High Court held that it is a fit case for grant of BAIL. 473 of 2007 with Crl. The allegation against the appellant was that he and two others were responsible for the suicide of Farzana who was the wife of the appellant — the High Court has referred to the factual scenario for a major part of the judgment. 2008 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 1973 — sections 397 read with section 401 — challenge in the appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant in terms of section 397 read with Section 401 — the appellant who was accused No. Subject Index: Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.B. State Police Tr. through its Director Respondent. 2002 — section 34 — appeal under — challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 34 of Prevention of Terrorism Act. Shakeel Appellant(s) Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. 1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.S. Ahmedabad — whereby they were acquitted of charges under Section 3 and 5 of The Terrorist and . In view of the reasons recorded by the High Court and the trial Court for rejecting the BAIL application.N. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. 484.R. 197 of 2008) Md.I. there was allegation of illegal custody no material was placed in that regard. A-8. Singhvi.COM 1452(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. A-10 and A-11 respectively) are directed against judgment dated 6.A.COM 1451(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Needless to say all relevant aspects shall be considered if an application for BAIL is filed — the High Court to take up the revision petition at an early date and make an effort to dispose of the same as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of order. 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. however. decided on 11/6/2008. Hanmakonda and another Respondent(s).2. Though.M. Nos. A-6. A-4.P.S. A-7. came to an abrupt conclusion that the revision was without any merit — the relevance of the dying declaration and its effect on the prosecution case has not been considered by the High Court at all — this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether the appellant is entitled to BAIL or not. Justice G. 705 & 582 of 2007) Mohmed Amin @ Amin C. A-5. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. Justice B. It. C. 2008 SCCL.2007 of the Designated Judge (TADA). decided on 11/18/2008. this Court is not inclined to interfere with the appeal. 1987 — appeals under by appellant Nos. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr. Shaikh and another Appellants Vs.Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism Act. State of Maharashtra Respondent. he was associated with A.Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.Telgi and had abetted and facilitated the commission of the organized crime. 3(5) — FIR under — application for BAIL rejected — challenged — it is not possible for this Court to accept the claim that the involvement of appellant was only peripheral. Telgi and his family members — the High Court has considered the matter in detail and has rightly concluded that this is not a fit case for granting BAIL. Raveendran and Hon'ble Dr.and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2008 SCCL. The High Court on examination of the material was satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out under section 3(2) of MCOC Act. State of Bihar and others Respondents. and he had also aided and assisted in the money-laundering operations and attempted to interfere with the witnesses on behalf of A. 1987 but were held guilty of different offences under the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. 1959 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. Hon'ble Mr. 1999 — sections 3(1)(ii). 3(2). Consequently. . decided on 11/28/2008. 1893 of 2008) Bhuvaneshwar Yadav Appellant Vs. the appeals fail and are dismissed.L. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. The material prima facie shows that though he was not directly connected with the printing and selling of the fake stamps.V. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr. 1868 of 2008) Manoj Ramesh Mehta Appellant Vs.L. 2008 SCCL. 255.A-5 and A-8 were also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 1860 — sections 120B. Appellant Nos. They were also convicted under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act — the appellants are guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and no independent corroboration is required for sustaining their conviction — the prosecution has produced sufficient corroborative evidence and the trial Court did not commit any error in relying upon the same to support its conclusion that the appellants are guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and other offences — learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any serious infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses by the trial Court — the trial Court did not commit any error in recording a finding that charges of conspiracy and murder are proved against the appellants.K.000/.COM 1512(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.COM 1479(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.K. 34 109 read with Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act.3. decided on 11/25/2008. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice R. 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.K. 199 of 2008) M/s. and others Appellants Vs. That does not in any way show that there was entitlement for granting the BAIL. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1973 — section 482 — petition under — dismissal by the High Court — challenged in this appeal — the appellants had prayed for quashing the proceedings — by the said petition appellants had prayed for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No. when there was no change in circumstances — the High Court noticed that earlier the BAIL was rejected. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. The learned magistrate recorded statements of the complainant under Section 200 of Code as well as of the witness under Section 202 of the Code and thereafter issued summons to the appellants to start proceedings. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. (Crl. the impugned order of the High Court shows a total nonapplication of mind. 1755 of 2008 with T. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised — the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise — the . No reason has been indicated as to why the prayer for BAIL was accepted after same was rejected on two earlier occasions. The appeal is allowed.Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 2008 SCCL. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. 1959 — conviction under of — respondents 2 and 3 — granting of BAIL to them — challenged in appeal — according to the appellant. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. The BAIL application shall be reconsidered on merits and shall be disposed of by a reasoned order. It was pointed out that the summons issued were never served and BAILable warrant of arrest and subsequently nonbailable warrant has been issued — the High Court accepted that without service of summons the issuance of BAILable as well as nonbailable warrant was uncalled for. The appellants took the stand that the proceedings were nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.1 and the order of learned Civil Judge — taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420. 1860 and issuance of summons to the appellants.P. Thakker. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. The impugned order of the High Court shows total non-application of mind and is therefore set aside. 1860 — sections 302 and 27 of the Arms Act. Harihar Singh and another Respondents.COM 1529(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice C. Eicher Tractor Ltd. decided on 11/7/2008. but liberty was granted to renew the prayer after six months.) No. It was also directed that the proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the Code was to be stayed and on the appellants appearing before the concerned court the proceedings shall continue — exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is an exception and not the rule. 5981-5986/2007. M. M. State of Karnataka Respondent.B. Nos.COM 1599(Case/Appeal No: Crl. Union of India and others Respondents. And 15724-15725/2008 In Crl. Justice R. Justice S. Justice Dalveer Bhandari. 5639 -5642. decided on 12/1/2008. Sabarmati. 5648-49/2007. 2008 SCCL. 302 read with sec. 34 — he is sentenced to the period already undergone — appeal . A.V. some by High Court and some other applications by Supreme Court — POTA repealed in 2004 through an Act — certain provisions of this 2004 Act were challenged — Supreme Court upheld the validity of section 2(3) and (5) of the Repealed Act — also upheld the deemed withdrawal of cases under POTA — hence. Justice Cyriac Joseph. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2004 — applications for BAIL and impleadment — some rejected by special judge. they had caused death of the deceased — appealed — High Court dismissed the appeal — appealed — Supreme Court issued a limited notice in respect of present appellant — Held: past enmity may not be a ground for inference of common intention amongst parties — appellant cannot be held guilty — appellant might be guilty for offence under sec. No. Ahmedabad and such other Courts where cases of applicants are pending.allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings — the proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the appellants.P. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. BAIL applications filed by the accused have to be considered afresh — accused also been charged under several non-POTA offences — to be tried by regular sessions judges — POTA Special Judge. No. Hon'ble Mr. 2008 SCCL. 2067 of 2008) Nagaraja Appellant Vs. Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act.4506/2007 @ Crl.P. 5643 of 2007 with Crl. are directed to send all those cases to the respective sessions judge within one month — in the instant case. No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Subject Index: IPC section 302 read with 34 — Trial Judge convicted all the three accused for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 — that due to previous ill-will in furtherance of their common intention. decided on 12/18/2008. A. petitioners are under-trial prisoners since April 2003 — Held: Respective Sessions Judge to consider this fact and dispose of the matters. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.COM 1636(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.1113/2005.1651-1652/2008) Anusuyaben Sadashiv Jadav and another Petitioners Vs. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. 323 of IPC and not for offence under sec. 8315/2007. B. Justice V. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 438 and 439 — allegation of smuggling of antiques against appellant — two of his BAIL applications rejected by Rajasthan High Court — appealed — appellant argued that evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not sufficient to secure his conviction in any of the charges — Held: while considering an application for BAIL. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Sirpurkar. a non-bailable warrant be issued — appeal allowed to this limited extent. who died due to hemorrhage and resultant shock — accused taken in custody — BAIL application rejected by Sessions Judge — appealed — High Court concluded that the accused was entitled to be released on BAIL — respondent released — aggrieved.allowed — as appellant is on BAIL. section 413. 2008 SCCL. 417. detailed discussion of merits be avoided and existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered — no merit in the appeal — dismissed. 504 and 506 — accused allegedly beat up complainant's son. decided on 12/12/2008. State of Rajasthan Respondent. 380 and 411 — Cr.COM 1637(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. State of Jharkhand Respondent. complainant filed special leave petition — Held : it is not as if once a BAIL is granted by any Court. decided on 12/19/2008. Justice S. some reasons justifying the grant of BAIL are necessary — High Court order set aside and High Court directed to decided the BAIL application again — accused shall immediately surrender — if he does not surrender . 2087 of 2008) Brij Nandan Jaiswal Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 2008 SCCL. Justice Cyriac Joseph. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr.S. the only way is to get it cancelled on account of its misuse — BAIL order can be tested on merits also — no reasons given by the High Court Judge while granting BAIL — Held : in serious cases like murder. sections 437(6).C. . Subject Index: IPC. BAIL bonds shall stand discharged. Subject Index: IPC 302.COM 1642(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2008) Vaman Narain Ghiya Appellant Vs.P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2020 of 2008) Ravishwar Manjhi and others Appellants Vs. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. decided on 12/12/2008. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and another Respondents. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. 2008 SCCL.COM 1651(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Sirpurkar.COM 21(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 323/149. 326/147/148/324 and 326 — complainant's father beaten to death by six accused — trial Court convicted all the six accused and awarded different quantum of sentences — High Court dismissed the appeal by appellants — appealed — Held : Sessions Judge and High Court appeared to have proceeded on the premise that as the appellants were not able to prove their defence. This approach of the Courts was not correct — investigation was carried out in a slipshod manner — Held: it is possible for the Court to arrive at conclusion that the appellants were entitled to exercise their right of private defence — appeal allowed — three of the accused in custody. apart from the evidence of the PW 5. 78 of 2009) Suzanne Lousie Martin Appellant Vs. The evidence of Bhouware Khan (DW 2) on which strong reliance was placed to contend that there was a marriage. the prosecution version should be accepted. Ali Sher.S. 147.1 and the prosecutrix were married. 100 of 2002) Neku Khan and others Appellants Vs. 323/149 342. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 458 and 366 IPC — there was no evidence of the marriage as claimed. — sections 376. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr.1 as recorded by the trial court and maintained by the High Court cannot be faulted — so far as the role played by appellant No. The appellants 1 & 2 Neku Khan and Same Khan shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence. 2009 SCCL. That being so the conviction of appellant No.Subject Index: IPC sections 302/149. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. 307/149. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. State of Rajasthan Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Their conviction is set aside. 458 and 366 — conviction of appellant no. Justice V. The BAIL bonds executed by them shall stand discharged. 342. That being so the appeal fails so far as they are concerned — it is rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants. decided on 1/7/2009. that there is practically no evidence to link with the other appellants i.e. it did not in fact substantiate the claim — there was no other material adduced to say that the accused no. Subject Index: Bail — granting of — and suspension of sentence — . 2 is concerned the same was clearly established by the evidence of injured witnesses PW 2 and PW 4. Justice Mukandakam Sharma. 2009 SCCL.COM 4(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.1 upheld by High Court — the other appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 147. Bakhsu Khan and Barkat Khan with the crime. are directed to be set at liberty — BAIL bonds of two other accused shall stand discharged. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents. decided on 1/16/2009. The BAIL granted to the respondent nos. On 23/24. this Court is certainly of the opinion that this was not a fit case where the sentence awarded should have been suspended and the accused released on BAIL.M. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 137 of 2009) Union of India Appellant Vs.11. 1860 — the only stand taken before the High Court was that the ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased included three contusions. 1985 — sections 8/27A and 8/29 — challenge in this appeal by the Union of India is to the order passed by . Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. totally unjustified in granting BAIL to the accused. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. She has alleged that because of this incident she was emotionally. 2009 SCCL. who was running the guest house. (2008 (3) SCALE 379) and the order was set aside — the impugned order. 2 and 3 were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.COM 56(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.appeal — the appellant is a British journalist and business woman. The High Court was. decided on 1/23/2009. or in suspending the sentence. 141 of 2009) Khilari Appellant Vs. She had come to India and was staying in Pardeshi Guest House. and others Respondents. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 2 and 3 is cancelled.K. the respondent No.P.12.COM 43(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Subject Index: Bail — allowed by DB of Allahabad Court — challenged in this appeal — respondent nos. Udaipur. is not sustainable and is set aside. thus. The order relating to grant of BAIL in respect of co-accused by order dated 15. one abraded contusion and four lacerated wounds of different dimensions on various parts of the body which could not have been caused by iron rods — the extracted portion of the High Court's order goes to show there was complete non-application of mind and non-consideration of the relevant aspects. mentally and physically wrecked and became totally uncapicitated to even think and act like a normal human being — without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute and culpability of the accused. barged into the room where the appellant was staying and forcibly raped her. State of U. Lodha. 2009 SCCL. therefore.2006 was the subject matter of challenge in Pancham Chand & Ors.2007. State of Himahal Pradesh & Ors. Subject Index: NDPS Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.2. decided on 1/23/2009. v. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Rattan Mallik @ Habul Respondent. Justice D. Justice R. had kept in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act — the impugned order having been passed ignoring the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. and another Respondents. 148. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 2/3/2009. In support of the second BAIL application it was submitted that pellets were found on the body of the deceased by the doctor and such pellets and the licensed rifle were sent to the ballistic expert. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. it cannot be sustained. it is not appropriate to cancel the BAIL. 2009 SCCL. State of U.the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad suspending the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the respondent for having committed offences under Sections 8/27A and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 302. Accordingly. From the report received it is revealed that such pellets could not have been used by the licensed rifle of the accused. Let the trial be completed within three months.P. and others Respondents. 307. 213 of 2009) Masood Ali Khan Appellant Vs. keeping in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 149. The High Court accepted the prayer for BAIL — since the accused is on BAIL for considerable length of time. 202 of 2009) Ashok Kumar Appellant Vs. 1985 and granting him BAIL — whether the High Court.11. Subject Index: Bail — granted by Allahabad High Court — appeal — respondent No. decided on 2/5/2009. State of U. 1860 — earlier the BAIL application filed was rejected by the High Court on 16. If the complainant or any witness seeks protection for appearance before the Court during trial. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr.96 of 2006 for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 147. while accepting the prayer for grant of BAIL.2006. The ballistic report completely falsified the prosecution case. 504 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.COM 81(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. . Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 2009 SCCL.COM 73(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr. 323. The trial Court would take up the matter on continuous basis to complete the trial within the period indicated above.2 faced trial in Crime No. the same shall be provided by the concerned police officials. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. though there appears to be some substance in the plea that the impugned order granting BAIL suffers from various infirmities. the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application filed by the respondent for suspension of sentence and for granting of BAIL.P. State of West Bengal Respondent. An appeal was filed before the High Court. 221 of 2009) Angana and another Appellants Vs. who were also charge sheeted in the same offences as that of the appellants and further taking into consideration the conduct of the appellants during the trial before the Sessions Court when they were on BAIL. If he is in confinement. State of Rajasthan Respondent. Dattu. 2009 SCCL. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed against. The effect of BAIL granted during trial looses significance when on completion of trial. 323. is really not of much significance. decided on 2/6/2009. the High Court could have suspended the sentence and granted BAIL to the appellants.COM 106(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 148.L. Respondents 2 to 4 shall surrender to custody forthwith. By the impugned order BAIL has been granted — the High Court has not referred to any circumstance which warrants grant of BAIL — section 389 of the Code empowers the Court to suspend the sentence pending the appeal and for release of the appellant on BAIL — section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on BAIL. 239 of 2009) Anil Ari Appellant Vs. the accused persons have been found guilty — the order of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. the said court can direct that he be released on BAIL. or on his own bond — the mere fact that during the trial. they were granted BAIL and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty. 1860 — sections 147.Subject Index: Bail — granted by Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court during the pendency of criminal appeal — each of the respondents 2 to 4 and co-accused Chhote was awarded life sentence. Justice H. 452 and 307 — charge under — the High Court while admitting the appeal has rejected the application seeking BAIL/suspension of sentence filed by the appellant — appeal — taking into consideration over all view of the matter and in particular offence alleged and sentence imposed and further taking into consideration the acquittal of other accused persons. Therefore. decided . The respondents filed an application for release on BAIL. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.COM 94(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. There is a distinction between BAIL and suspension of sentence. this Court would be justified under Article 136 of the Constitution in interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court — sentence suspended. 149. 2009 SCCL. Charge was framed on 5. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle Etc. granting BAIL to the respondents — since the High Court had not kept the relevant parameters in view. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. they were granted BAIL and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty. 2009 SCCL.168 of 2008 were convicted by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. is really not of much significance — on the peculiar facts of the case considering the age of the accused appellant Anil Ari.2005 and the accused persons faced trial as they pleaded innocence — charges were framed against 16 persons as two of the accused persons had expired before the commencement of the trial. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence came to hold that appellants before the High Court were guilty as afore-noted — the appellate Court is duty bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of BAIL — the mere fact that during the trial.00 p. decided on 2/11/2009. 269 of 2009) State of Maharashtra Etc. in furtherance of their common intention had murdered the complainant's brother Shibram Maity and had concealed the dead body in the house of one Sasanka Maity. Arms Act. Second Court.7.7. 13. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. The police undertook investigation and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against 19 persons. Nagpur Bench. Appellant Vs. 1860 — law was set into motion on 9.COM 116(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Contai. 18 and 29.1994 at about 11. 1959 — section 3 and 4 — Indian Penal Code.m. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 1967 — sections 10. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Fast Track. . 1860 — sections 34 and 120B — trial under — challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.11. the impugned order is set aside — the trial court to complete the trial as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this court's order. Respondent.1994 by one Shamburam Maity. 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Purba Medinipur for offences punishable under Sections 342. while granting BAIL. this Court directs that he shall be released on BAIL on furnishing security.on 2/9/2009. 1973 — section 389 — application for suspension of sentence under — rejected by the DB of Calcutta High Court — challenged in this appeal — four persons who are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. Subject Index: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. alleging that 17 accused persons and many unknown persons on 8. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. without hearing the original complainant and was. Indore. Justice R. 343 of 2009) Rasiklal Appellant Vs. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 2 who had applied for BAIL during the pendency of the proceedings — a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed the BAIL application. and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge" — the impugned order of the High Court set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. Jalore. decided on 2/20/2009.V. Panchal. in Criminal Revision No. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1860 — sections 499 and 500 — appellant is accused for commission of offences and assails the order — by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh.2009 SCCL. 1973 (in short 'Code'). Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. 1973 — section 169 — scope and ambit of — challenge in this appeal is to the grant of BAIL to respondent No. Justice J. had rejected the BAIL application on considering the nature of allegations against the present respondent No. It needs to be noted that learned Sessions Judge. 2 — the BAIL application has to consider among other circumstances the following: "(i) the nature of accusations and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. bad for violation of principles of natural justice — having regard to the facts of the case this Court is of the firm opinion that the BAIL granted to the appellant for alleged commission of BAILable offence could not have been cancelled by the High Court on the ground that the complainant was not heard and. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Bench at Indore. thus. The High Court did not examine the case on merits and on that score alone accepted the prayer for BAIL. principles of natural justice were violated.COM 122(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Kisore Respondent. 1362 of 2006 by which BAIL granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. passed by the learned . M. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. 2 was to be added as an accused is the subject matter of examination by the High Court. (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. therefore. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 2008. on December 1. while considering the scope and ambit of Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.M.COM 168(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Indore.P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2009 SCCL. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents. The High Court stated that the question as to whether respondent No. Principles of natural justice is not a 'mantra' to be applied in vacuum in all cases — the order dated March 24. 241 of 2009) Dhuk Singh Appellant Vs. decided on 2/9/2009. 2006 is cancelled on the ground that the order granting BAIL was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. 2. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. Beed convicted the appellant under section 498A IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. Devi Sarup and others Respondents. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. decided on 2/12/2009. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. No interference is called for. 891 of 2001) Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. 1860 — sections 498A. decided on 2/12/2009. 2009 SCCL.COM 191(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1604 of 2005 is hereby restored. 306 and 109 — conviction under — the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr..2.COM 207(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.P. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. in Criminal Revision No. 2 and 3 were. in Criminal Complaint No. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr. 891 of 2001) Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. 1085 of 2009) Sneh Gupta Appellant Vs.Single Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 306 and 109 — conviction under — the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge. 2009 SCCL.— original accused nos. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. 1860 — sections 498A. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed — the BAIL bond of the appellant are cancelled. State of Maharashtra and another Respondents. passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Justice S. 1362 of 2006 cancelling the BAIL granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate is hereby set aside and order dated December 1.— original . State of Maharashtra and another Respondents. decided on 2/17/2009. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Bench at Indore.B. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. acquitted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge. 2006. 2009 SCCL. however.COM 234(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. M. Beed — the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. Beed convicted the appellant under section 498A IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/. Indore. Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure — order XXIII — Rule — interpretation of.500/. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. this Court does not find any infirmity in the .5. 385 of 2009) Amin Khan Appellant Vs. Beed — the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. of Delhi) and another Respondents. decided on 2/20/2009.2006 the State filed an application in terms of Section 390 read with Section 482 of Code for revoking the earlier order and to commit the accused persons to prison after summoning them through non BAILable warrants — the High Court has found that prima facie the evidence regarding identification made in court and DNA test has not been considered in the proper perspective by the trial Court.500/. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2007 rendered by Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in BAIL Application No. State (Govt. 1959 — six persons faced trial — the learned Sessions Judge.per month by way of maintenance (both past and future) to his wife and child is hereby deleted.V.as maintenance for release on BAIL — assailed — the direction contained in order dated August 07.COM 251(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Rest of the directions contained in the said order are maintained.C. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 12. 2 and 3 were. decided on 2/25/2009. No interference is called for.500/. State of Rajasthan and others Respondents. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. That being so.M. 12. 2009 SCCL. acquitted the accused persons of all the charges — on 26.accused nos. 423 of 2007 requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. however. 344 of 2009) Munish Bhasin and others Appellants Vs. of N.T.COM 258(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Alwar. Panchal. acquitted by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Justice R. 1860 — sections 396 and Arms Act. 2009 SCCL.8. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. On 14.2006 the High Court granted leave and summoned the respondents through BAILable warrants. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed — the BAIL bond of the appellant are cancelled. It was noted that the DNA report of the hair allegedly seized from the hands of the deceased prima facie established that it was of the accused Mubin and Amin who remained throughout the trial in custody. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 1860 — section 498A and 406 read with section 34 — complaint filed by wife for alleged commission of offences under against him and against his parents — High Court imposed the condition of payment of Rs. decided on 3/6/2009.B. State of U. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Sirpurkar. 2009 SCCL. 811 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 23837 of 2008) Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh and another Appellants Vs. 1973 — section 438 — application under — allowed by High Court — the appellants are aggrieved due to imposition of alleged onerous condition for grant of anticipatory BAIL — the present appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by a part of the direction contained in the Order dated 21. State of Gujarat Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.R. 471. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. the High Court refused to quash the F. 1987 — questions of law regarding grant of BAIL — all these three appeals have been filed under Section 19 of TADA relating to separate incidents which are alleged to have occurred in Porbandar and Valsad in the State of Gujarat.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court — impugned order set aside — the High Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. decided on 3/3/2009. sections 467. Subject Index: Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. Inspector of Police and another Respondents.impugned judgment to warrant interference. 418 of 2009) Ramathal and others Appellants Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. his BAIL application will be considered and disposed of expeditiously — this is not a fit case for quashing the first information report. 468. 538 of 2009) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Appellant Vs. 813 of 2008 and 453 of 2009 @ Criminal Appeal D. . giving reasons for its decision. 2009 SCCL.07. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. decided on 3/23/2009. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. Justice V.P. 420.COM 324(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2009 SCCL.COM 300(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. No. but directed that if the appellant surrenders within 10 days.COM 322(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. and others Respondent(s). Justice S. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 409 and 218 — FIR — writ filed for quashing the FIR — by the impugned Judgment.S.I. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. In that view of the matter and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and with a view to do complete justice to the parties. It is. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2009 SCCL. this Court. State of Haryana Respondent. Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 142 — exercise of jurisdiction under — appellant was a partner of a firm known as M/s Saraswati Exports.COM 410(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. direct that in the event the appellant appears before the learned Magistrate within a period of four weeks from date and files an application for grant of BAIL.2. If an order of cognizance has been passed relying on or on the basis thereof by the learned Magistrate. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents. Justice S. decided on 3/3/2009.' — the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against the appellant by an order dated 9. Appellant thereafter filed an application for quashing of the said order before the Rajasthan High Court which has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment — the question as to whether the complainant was entitled to a higher amount of commission in terms of the agreement dated 21. The complainant in terms of the said agreement was not only entitled to inspect the documents maintained by the accused but also to get the same audited. decided on 4/1/2009. difficult to hold as has rightly been opined by the Investigating Officer that a case for imposing a criminal liability on the accused on that score has been made out — the chargesheet. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr. The . therefore.1. no exception thereto can be taken — this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders — the appellant is ready and willing to get the disputes and differences between the parties settled.B.2007. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 1860 — section 498A — conviction under — confirmed by additional sessions Judge — revision petition — dismissed by High Court — challenged in this appeal — six persons were arrayed as accused persons on the basis of information lodged by Santosh Kumari — nothing infirm in the judgment of the High Court in upholding the conviction of accused appellant Satish Kumar. in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.COM 429(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. A fair investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. 417 of 2009) Mahesh Choudhary Appellant Vs. He is also Director of a Company known as `Saraswati Exim Pvt. prima facie discloses commission of offences.2009 SCCL. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 976 of 2001) Satish Kumar Batra and others Appellants/Petitioners Vs. he shall be released on BAIL on such terms and conditions as the learned Magistrate may seem fit and proper. Ltd. The charge-sheet is a detailed one. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr.1973 is essentially a civil dispute. while upholding the conviction. He has been released on BAIL pursuant to order dated 9.2 & 3 i. Therefore.e. Naresh Kumar @ Kaka and others Respondents. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. It is on record that he has undergone sentence of more than 13 months. — an application for cancellation for BAIL was filed by the present respondent no.2001. the respondents were not in custody and BAILable warrants were issued. So far as the appellant nos. respondent nos.C.sentence imposed was two years. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.P. 1202 of 2003) State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Vs.2 — prosecution version is that in the wake of a property dispute present appellant had hired with the assistance of one Deepak Harnath Singh. Cr. decided on 4/24/2009. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. the High Court on the irrelevant reason that co-accused did not oppose the prayer should not have cancelled the BAIL granted to the appellant — the High Court shall examine the matter afresh keeping in view the . Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.COM 517(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. decided on 4/22/2009. the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations so far as they are concerned. Therefore. It was noted that since the other co-accused have not opposed the prayer for cancellation of BAIL that was also a factor so far as the appellant is concerned — the parameters for grant of BAIL and for cancellation of BAIL operate in different fields. 2009 SCCL. and another Respondents. 829 of 2009) Ram Babu Tiwari Appellant Vs. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 1860 — section 302 read with section 34 and 323 read with section 34 — conviction under — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondents who faced trial of alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 — the High Court to explore the possibility of disposing of the appeal as early as practicable and preferably by the end of September 2009 — after the acquittal when this Court granted leave.7. They will continue to be so till the disposal of the matter afresh by the High Court. 1860 — sections 307 read with section 34 — arrested under — prayed for BAIL under section 439. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.COM 545(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi are concerned. 2 and 3 for killing Shyam Tiwari who is his real brother — the High Court cancelled the BAIL granted. 2009 SCCL.P. State of M. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. 1860 — sections 147. His BAIL bonds shall stand cancelled. 2009 SCCL. 4167 of 2008. Justice Arijit Pasayat and and Hon'ble Dr. Lodha. and another Respondents.COM 546(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.P.COM 575(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2002) Velayuda Pulavar Appellant(s) Vs. dismissed. The appeal is. 1860 — sections 302 and 201 — conviction under — upheld by the Madras High Court — challenged in this appeal — PW. Chhunnu @ Chhidda. 148.parameters indicated above. Justice D.K. Justice R. State of U. District Moradabad against 22 persons — the impugned order granting BAIL to the second respondent is set aside. 149 and 307 — FIR under — section 302 was also added — challenge in this appeal by the complainant is to the order dated 10th March.1's evidence coupled with that of PW. The BAIL bond and surety furnished by the said respondent in terms of the High Court's order stand cancelled and it is directed that he shall be taken into custody forthwith. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.181 of 2007.3 makes the position clear that there was a voluntary extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the Village Administrative Officer — no scope for interference in this appeal. State of Sub-Inspector of Police Respondent(s). registered at Police Station Asmouli. decided on 4/16/2009. The appellant shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of the sentence. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 2009 SCCL. The appellant is on BAIL. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. granting BAIL to the second respondent. 838 of 2009) Masroor Appellant Vs.COM 591(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. decided on 5/5/2009. decided on 4/27/2009. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 2008 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous BAIL Application No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 22 of 2002) Bimla Devi and another Appellant(s) Vs. The said respondent was one of the persons named in FIR No. 2009 SCCL. accordingly.M. State of Jammu and Kashmir Respondent(s). Subject Index: Ranbir Penal Code — sections 306 and 498-A — . Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 66-72/2004. 3741/2004 & 3742/2004 in WP (Crl.) No. and a reinvestigation/further investigation into the various incidents on the basis of which charges had been filed in these trials. Mr.Nos. granted a stay of these ongoing trials — the matter was then heard from time to time and an order was then made on 26th . M.6767/2006 in Crl.M.109/2003.P.) No. 6864/2004 in WP (Crl. 194202 and 326-329/2003.M. 7827/2003.216/2003.109/2003. WP(Crl. 10719/2003 in WP (Crl.) Nos. The BAIL bonds executed to give effect to the order of BAIL dated 9. 109 of 2003 with Crl. Crl.109/2003.conviction under — upheld by single Judge of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court — while reducing the sentence so far as the offence relatable to Section 306 is concerned — in the present case no useful purpose would be served in remanding matter since it is more than 20 years old and the appellant has served part of the custodial sentence.109/2003. the same has to be provided. W. this Court.) No.) No.109/2003.) No.) Nos. TP(Crl. 11689/2003 in WP (Crl. Apart from that in the present case.) Nos.D.109/2003. Justice Aftab Alam.) No. 9236/2005 in WP (Crl. which sought various reliefs including the transfer of some of the ongoing trials.P.P. 11668/2003 in WP (Crl.109/2003 Crl.4409/2003. WP(Crl.17953/2003.109/2003. No.2001 shall stand discharged. TP(Crl. 7824/2007 in WP (Crl. State of Gujarat — Protection of witnesses — since the protection of a witness is a paramount importance it is imperative that if and when any witness seeks protection so that he or she can depose freely in court. TP(Crl. Justice Arijit Pasayat.109/2003.) No.) No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr.4485/2006 in SLP (Crl. 7078/2003 in WP (Crl. WP (Crl. TP (Crl. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. SLP (Crl. 37-52/2002. 8193/2003 & 8194/2003 in WP (Crl. 6767/2006 in WP (Crl. 233-234/2004.3770/2003) National Human Rights Commission Petitioner/Appellant Vs.) No.) No. Justice P.) No.) No.) No.1.7951/2002. Subject Index: Constitution of Special Investigation team in the matter of National Human Rights Commission vs. It is therefore directed that if a person who is examined as a witness needs protection to ensure his or her safety to depose freely in a court he or she shall make an application to the SIT and the SIT shall pass necessary orders in the matter and shall take into account all the relevant aspects and direct such police official/officials as it considers proper to provide the protection to the concerned person — in these petitions.5309/2003.) No.COM 592(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl. WP (Crl. SLP (Crl.109/2003. 118 of 2003.) No.) No. Nos. No.) No.43 of 2004.P.) No. decided on 5/1/2009.109/2003.P.)No.284/2003. SLP(Crl. in the first instance. (Crl.) No.109/2003. 2009 SCCL. That being so. in the examination under Section 313 of the Code no question was put up relating to demand of dowry and abetment of suicide.) No. State of Gujarat and others Respondents.) No. 37413742/2004 in WP(Crl. 4782/2003 in WP (Crl.M.) No. the appeal deserves to be allowed — the conviction stands set aside. That being so the High Court ought not to have interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court directing acquittal. 787 of 2009) Subhash Chandra Singh Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Dheemant Singh and another Respondents.1. The reasoning of the High Court that something must have happened and otherwise deceased would not have committed suicide is clearly indefensible. 383 of 2002) Nepal Singh Appellant Vs. Having said so. Subject Index: Bail — granting of — challenge in this appeal is to the the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granting BAIL to the respondent No. That certainly could not have been a reason to set aside the trial Court's judgment of acquittal — the BAIL bonds executed with effect to the order of BAIL dated 18th May. The appeal is by father of the Shobhna who was married to the respondent No.1. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. On one hand it is noted that there was no dispute that the death had taken place within seven years of the marriage and that it was unnatural death. 1860 — section 304-B and 498-A — conviction under — by High Court of Punjab & Haryana — challenged in this appeal — there was no evidence towards the claim regarding any demand of dowry. and for a further investigation into these matters — all the directions are to be considered by SIT by looking into the threat perception if any — the SIT would continue to function and carry out any investigations that are yet to be completed. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. decided on 4/24/2009. 2002 and subsequent . 2009 SCCL. The SIT would also discharge such functions as have been cast upon them by the present order. or any further investigation that may arise in the course of the trials. 2009 SCCL. It is stated that the death took place within seven years of the marriage and it was unnatural death.March 2008 directing the establishment of the SIT. it is not understood as to how the High Court observed that the provisions of Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. decided on 4/20/2009. Subject Index: ndian Penal Code.COM 608(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1872 are not applicable and this is not a case punishable under Section 304 B IPC — matter remitted for fresh consideration on merits. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. The High Court by a practically non-reasoned order granted BAIL — even a cursory perusal of the High Court's order shows complete non-application of mind — the High Court's order is a bundle of confusion.COM 602(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. State of Haryana Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 7 years imprisonment. 380. 379. life imprisonment. Jalandhar — the appellants have also filed separate applications for grant of BAIL during the pendency of the appeal — appellant not entitled to the relief claimed — in the peculiar circumstances of this case and in view of the fact. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Antony @ Antappan Appellant Vs. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.date shall stand discharged. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice H. 2 is an old lady of 80 years of age and she had already been in jail for more than one year.L. that the appellant No. 380. 7 years imprisonment for the offence relatable to Section 449. 1860 — sections 449. 302 and 201 — conviction under — challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 449. State of Punjab Respondent.A. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta. State of Kerala Respondent. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant also preferred an appeal and by the impugned judgment. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence relatable to Section 379 IPC. decided on 4/22/2009. 2009 SCCL. 1860 — sections 304B read with section 498-A — sentence under — the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. decided on 5/8/2009. 811 of 2009) M. Dattu. 380 and 201 respectively. 1973. both the Death Reference and Criminal Appeal were disposed of — the analysis of the evidence shows that the accused/appellant was in dire and urgent need of more and he had a motive for getting the said amount of money — there has been full compliance of provisions of Section 164(2) and the confessional statement made freely and voluntarily by accused on BAIL cannot be rejected merely because the Magistrate has used the expression `evidence' instead of `confession' while warning the accused — the appeal is without merit. 1860 — appellant was sentenced to death for the offence relatable to Section 302 IPC. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. she is entitled for the relief prayed in the application. and deserves dismissal. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 2009 SCCL.COM 620(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 379. .COM 636(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2009) Bakshish Ram and another Appellants Vs. For confirmation of the death sentence reference was made to the High Court under Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 581 of 2007) Ram Pat and others Appellant(s) Vs. Nothing has been pointed out as to why even the BAIL granted to the appellants should be cancelled so as to enable this court to consider that question independently — no sufficient or cogent material has been placed on record by the State or the Special Investigating Team in this behalf — the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. decided on 5/6/2009. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. State of Gujarat Respondent. is the question involved herein — appellants had been prosecuted for commission of an offence under Sections 302/307/395/396/397/201/435/ 324/143/147/148/149/153A/341/337/427 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act — in this case the Special Investigating Team has already submitted its report to this Court. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr. police custody of the accused on remand can be sought for. although cognizance of the offence had already been taken.B. 2006 a complaint under Section 13 of the OSA was filed and on the next date i. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr. 935-936 of 2009) C.COM 676(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.COM 683(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 19th October 2006 a supplementary charge sheet were filed against the respondent. Justice S. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr. State of Haryana Respondent(s). decided on 5/12/2009.COM 653(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Abhishek Verma Respondent.2008.. New Delhi Appellant Vs. is presently on BAIL and there is no allegation that at any point of time subsequent thereto he has misused or mis-utilised the liberty granted to him — no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Act. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.B. 1860 — section 120-B read with sections 3(1)(c) and (5) of the Official Secrets. Subject Index: Investigation — whether with the change of an investigating authority. 2009 SCCL. Justice S. 941 of 2009) Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and others Appellants Vs.I.B. 2009 SCCL. The CMM took cognizance of the offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the OSA and under Section 409/109 read with Section 120-B IPC — pursuant to the order of the High Court.2009 SCCL. The respondent. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. decided on 5/6/2009.06. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. . Justice S. therefore. 1923 — FIR under — charge — on 18th October.e.B. the trial court enlarged the respondent on BAIL on 03. 1860 — sections 409. 7360. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. They were. decided on 5/6/2009. they had no right of private defence to defend the possession of the property. the Appellate Court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal. Accused persons are directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence. 1986 — section 16 — appointment of the President of the State Commission — justiciability of the recommendations of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court for appointment of Shri N. on the premise that the appellants were in settled possession of the property. Narnaul set aside by the DB of Punjab & Haryana High Court — appeal — the right of private defence can be exercised provided any occasion arises therefor. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the said Court for a period of two years on or about 6th November. The learned trial judge wrongly held so. Subject Index: Consumer Protection Act. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr. Dattu. If they were not. Appellants are on BAIL. 2003. Subject Index: Acquittal judgment recorded by Sessions Judge. 7368. Their BAIL bonds shall stand cancelled. Kannadasan with Government of Tamil Nadu rep. Justice S. 1986 is the question involved herein — the appellant was an Advocate practicing in the Madras High Court. the aggressors being fully armed — there cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that if two views are possible. 2009 SCCL. 467 468 . by its Secretary Appellant(s) Vs. 7372 of 2008) N. Justice H.B.COM 689(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. Ajoy Khose and others with Anna Mathew and others Respondent(s).Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 1076 of 2009) Dinesh Kumar Sinha Petitioner/Appellant Vs. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 420.COM 690(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. thus. 2009 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Kannadasan (the appellant) as the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in terms of Section 16 of the Consumers Protection Act. decided on 5/15/2009. State of Jharkhand through CBI Respondent. etc. but this has many exceptions — the appeal is dismissed. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. During his tenure as an Additional Judge a representation was made from the Members of the Bar alleging lack of probity against him inter alia contending : (A) (i) several orders had been passed by him granting BAIL in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) matters in contravention of the mandate laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act despite the refusal of BAIL on earlier occasions either by him or by other Judges .L. Hyderabad framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 120B. 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act inter alia alleging that cheques issued to SI were fraudulently discounted and amounts were drawn between 14.V. Accused Nos.2. a criminal complaint was lodged by the Bank before the III Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad under Sections 120B. 467. State Rep. 420. 420 IPC read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However. 4 to 6 were additionally charged with Section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act — the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be upheld.1989.B. By CBI. 2009 SCCL.L. decided on 5/11/2009. On or about 17. Hyderabad State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.2. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.P. therefore it is requested that the appellant may be released on BAIL — the applicant/appellant should be released on BAIL. this court does not find any substance therein.JayaKumar Venugopal Loya and others Appellants Vs.1994.1989 and 1. So far as the submission of learned Additional Solicitor General that this Court. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr.7. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr. 942. 467. 420 . State of Maharashtra and another Respondents. Justice S. Proper charges have not been framed against them.6. 1860 — sections 120B. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. decided on 5/6/2009. 945. 981 of 2009) Jayendra Vishnu Thakur Appellant Vs. . having regard to the concurrent findings of fact as regards the commission of offence arrived at by the learned Special Judge as also the High Court. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. the Metropolitan Magistrate directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate into the case pursuant whereto a First Information Report was lodged — on or about 7. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Appellants have been charged under wrong provisions. should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is concerned. By CBI with State of A.1989 — in the said complaint no allegation was made against the officers of the Bank. Murthy with P.5.B.COM 696(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.471 465 and 477A read with section 120(b) as also Prevention of Corruption Act — section 13(2) 13(1)(c)(d) conviction under — appeal — the appellant has already undergone nearly two years of his sentence and also there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court.COM 723(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Respondents.1989. 943-944 of 2009) S. learned Special Judge for CBI Cases. 471 and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act — complaint under — on 21. Justice S. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 2009 SCCL. (Criminal) No. 2009 SCCL. therefore.COM 767(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. decided on 5/6/2009. Justice Deepak Verma. 1999 — . 935-936 of 2009) C.I. Justice P. 1923 — FIR under — charge — on 18th October. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 967968 of 2009) Mustaq Ahmed Mohammed Isak and others Appellants Vs. decided on 5/8/2009.B. Of course. 2009 SCCL.L.. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr.COM 761(Case/Appeal No: S. Abhishek Verma Respondent. 1872 — as also section 14(5) of TADA 2009 SCCL.06. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. State of Maharashtra Respondent. 2006 a complaint under Section 13 of the OSA was filed and on the next date i. State of Punjab Respondent. 19th October 2006 a supplementary charge sheet were filed against the respondent. is presently on BAIL and there is no allegation that at any point of time subsequent thereto he has misused or mis-utilised the liberty granted to him — no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court. The respondent. 1860 — section 120-B read with sections 3(1)(c) and (5) of the Official Secrets Act. 3529 of 2009) Sukhwant Singh and others Petitioners Vs. The CMM took cognizance of the offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the OSA and under Section 409/109 read with Section 120-B IPC — pursuant to the order of the High Court. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.e. 1973 — section 438 — application under — for grant of anticipatory BAIL — dismissed — petition filed challenging the judgment — in the power to grant BAIL there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant interim BAIL to a person pending final disposal of the BAIL application. decided on 5/18/2009.2008. New Delhi Appellant Vs. the trial court enlarged the respondent on BAIL on 03.B.P. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Sathasivam. 1973 — section 299 — interpretation of Indian Evidence Act.COM 738(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Subject Index: Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. it is in the discretion of the court concerned to grant interim BAIL or not but the power is certainly there. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. must be recorded.9. Justice Arijit Pasayat Hon'ble Mr.K. the application for BAIL was rejected by the courts below — the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. 1234 of 2009) Subodh Kumar Yadav Appellant Vs. State of Bihar and another . Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 2009 SCCL. 5 and 6 — provided sufficient guidelines — direction was given to the State about affixing the photographs of the accused persons as well as the witnesses. Jain and Hon'ble Dr. the application for BAIL was filed by the appellants on default ground and therefore.2006 passed by learned Special Judge in BAIL application No. The High Court accepted that the order passed by learned Single Judge did not suffer from any infirmity — on 4. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Indore Bench. the Regulation and the Code. The appeals fail and are dismissed accordingly.section 12 — challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that the order dated 4. which gave certain directions to the State Government in the matter of identification of prisoners and methodology for investigation. Davendra Respondent. There is a likelihood of a grievance being made that the photographs were shown to the accused before the Test Identification Parade — challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The respondent No.COM 856(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 979 of 2002) State of M. therefore.1 had filed an application for grant of BAIL in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1920 — sections 4.COM 950(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. In case of complainant as well as witnesses. 17 of 2006 suffers from no infirmity — the BAIL application was preferred by the accused Nos. Subject Index: Identification of Prisoners Act. 5 to 8 challenging the order dated 21. 32 of 2006 filed in remand application No.P. where prosecution wants to protect the identity.9. photographs should not be taken.2006 the charge sheet has been filed and on that day itself. Appellant Vs. In case of rape victims. The BAIL application came to be rejected — stand of the State before the High Court was that the stand of the appellants about the scheme of Section 21(2)(b) is misconceived. 1973 — even though the petition had become infructuous certain directions were necessary to be given to the concerned authorities — the directions are subject to provisions of the Act. 2009 SCCL. decided on 5/5/2009.8. the reasons. In case of conflict statute itself prevails.2006 passed by the Special Court thereby granting second extension of 15 days to complete the investigation and to file the charge-sheet. abused the concession of BAIL granted to them — the impugned order setting aside the anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Justice R.M. conduct subsequent to release on BAIL and supervening circumstances will be relevant.COM 954(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. which.Respondents. were missing in the instant case — nothing was brought to this Court's notice from which it could be inferred that the appellants have not co-operated in the investigations or have. cannot be sustained — nothing said by the High Court or by this . this Court pointed out that for cancellation of BAIL. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. 11781179 of 2009) Savitri Agarwal and others Appellant(s) Vs. Justice R. in any manner.V. The said observations were not intended to restrict the power of a superior court to cancel BAIL in appropriate cases on other grounds. decided on 7/10/2009. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.M. State of Maharashtra and another Respondent(s). 1860 — section 498A — BAIL granted to the appellant — cancelled — appeal — while considering the factors relevant for consideration of BAIL already granted vis-à-vis the factors relevant for rejection of BAIL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. or if there was manifest impropriety as for example failure to hear the public prosecutor/complainant where required. an order for cancellation of BAIL can in fact be made — while cancelling BAIL. Lodha.K. the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 304-B read with section 34 and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. decided on 7/15/2009. therefore. the superior Court would be justified in considering the question whether irrelevant material were taken into consideration by the court granting BAIL — this Court is of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in confirming the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling the BAIL which was arbitrarily granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and. 1860 — sections 498-A. 2009 SCCL. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Panchal. Justice J. In fact it is now well settled that if a superior court finds that the court granting BAIL had acted on irrelevant material or if there was non-application of mind or failure to take note of any statutory bar to grant BAIL. 1961 — appellant accused of having committed the offences under — protection granted under section 438 to the appellants — withdrawn — applications filed by the State allowed in the High Court — challenged in this appeal — the High Court has overlooked the distinction of factors relevant for rejecting BAIL in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of BAIL already granted — very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of BAIL already granted. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Appellant Vs. Bhimani and another Respondents. 1096 of 2004) Fateh Chand Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr.S. decided on 5/29/2009.Court shall be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the case. 2009 SCCL. . State of Haryana Respondent. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice S.COM 999(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon'ble Dr. Chauhan (Vacation Bench). Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. State of Punjab and others Respondents. decided on 8/4/2009. misappropriation. 1374 of 2009) M. 1412 of 2009) Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. 471 & 120B — criminal conspiracy. 467. J. 1860 — sections 406. Ltd. — administrator appointed on behalf of Bank unearthed a large scale scam & defalcation of money made by respondents committing fraud of crores of rupees — criminal complaint against respondent — respondent arrested — filed application for grant of BAIL — allowed by High Court — appeal — first respondent substantively complied with the directions of the High Court — appeal dismissed with no costs.COM 2021(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.COM 1066(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 409. decided on 7/31/2009. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice B. Justice Cyriac Joseph. Cooperative Bank Ltd. 2009 SCCL. question of having any physical injury marks would not arise — appeal dismissed — BAIL bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled — appellant to be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Appellant Vs. 1860 — sections 364 and 376 — abduction and rape — prosecutrix was abducted by the appellant & his wife fraudulently where she was sexually abused and coerced to indulge in flesh trade — after 1½ years returned back to her house & produced before police — medically and rediologically examined — proved guilt of appellant — convicted and sentence awarded — appeal before High Court — conviction as well as sentence maintained — hence this appeal — matter examined on evidence on record — no doubt regarding the age of prosecutrix as examined radiologically — fraudulently taking the prosecutrix away. cheating etc.M.P. 420. subjecting her to rape and forcing her to indulge in flesh trade by coercion — grounds taken in the appeal are not worth acceptance — habitual to sexual intercourse.B. 2009 SCCL. Justice S. Justice S. Subject Index: The Extradition Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.B. Massachusetts? — having regard to the provisions of sec. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr. restraint & abuse prevention ex-parte in favour of respondent no. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents. 2009 SCCL.B. 6 — appellant came to India with the child in violation of the court custody orders — appellant received a notice from Interpol being a Yellow or watch notice in relation to child and notice being a Red or detain & Arrest in relation to appellant — whether having regard to the concept of sovereignty the Executive Government of India can enforce a warrant passed by the Probate & family court.COM 2043(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 44A and 13 of CPC. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. Massachusetts passed an order of temporary custody of the child. Justice Cyriac Joseph. 6 continuously being harassed — Probate & Family court. 1173 of 2008) . is the foreign judgement enforceable in India? — whether the CBI established under the DPSE Act has the country reign supreme in matters of extradition — dispute between the appellant and respondent no. 6 at Mumbai & moved to California — respondent no. 6 is a private dispute & no criminal extraditable offence can be made in the absence of a specific request for extradition — if a violation of any order passed by a civil court on ground of issuance of red corner notice. 1452 of 2009) Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani Appellant Vs. decided on 8/7/2009. the court will enquire as to whether the same has undergone the tests under sec. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure. 2009 SCCL. 1963 — Section 438 — conditions for granting anticipatory BAIL — appellants lodged FIR against the firm for committed misappropriation of a huge amount and also created several forged and fraudulent credits — respondents filed an application for grant of anticipatory BAIL — held High Court ought to have considered the effect thereof. namely. 13 & 44A of CPC — appellant held to be in lawful custody of his daughter under further order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction — impugned judgment set aside — appeal allowed with no cost.COM 2061(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1962 — appellant married with respondent no. the interim order has thereby been made a final order which is impermissible in law — an interim order always passed subject to the final order — impugned order set aside — matter remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the appellant's application for cancellation of interim BAIL as also the respondent's application for grant of anticipatory BAIL — appeal allowed. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Lodha. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma. Justice V. as also the death sentence awarded by the Session Judge — held whether the appellant should be set to gallows? — whether the present case is the 'rarest of the rare' case? — most dastardly murder of 2 helpless persons — appellant already previously convicted for an offence of murder and was facing a sentence of life imprisonment and was on BAIL — the present case was not a pre-meditated murder — appellant acted in a sudden manner — death sentence not confirmed — instead would be substituted by the sentence to remain in jail for minimum 35 years. 36. Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — determination of compensation — 8 acres 7 guntas of respondent's land acquired for the benefit of the Appellant Market Committee — determined compensation as Rs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2009 SCCL. 2009 SCCL. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. 6235-6236 of 2009) Secretary. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Quasami Janab Ajmatalla Salamulla and another Respondents. 4 lacs per . Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure.COM 3019(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 302.Haru Ghosh Appellant Vs.per acre — reference Court — increased it to Rs. punishment for voluntary causing grievous hurt — appellant/accused tried for committed murder of. 1860 — Sections. State of West Bengal and another Respondents. one aged 30 years and another aged 12 years — also tried for attempting to murder under Section 307-326 of one aged 60 years — High Court confirmed the verdict of conviction. 1860 — Sections 403. 307-326 — punishment of murder.V. 409. decided on 8/27/2009. Justice R.000/. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Sudershan Reddy.M. 1732 of 2009) Hazari Lal Das Appellant Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.COM 2099(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. decided on 9/8/2009. Justice B. Bailhongal Appellant Vs. 420 and 467/34 — forged documents and misappropriation of funds — appellant/accused released on anticipatory BAIL — complainant filed petition for cancellation of anticipatory BAIL granted to accused/appellant — held nothing on record for interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice by the appellant — no record that concession granted to appellant been abused in any manner — appeal allowed.S. Justice R. 1973 — Section 438 — application for anticipatory BAIL — Indian Penal Code. Agricultural Produce Market Committee. decided on 9/11/2009. attempt to murder. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 148. 1860 — Sections 302 read with 34. Union of India Respondent.COM 3078(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. unlawful assembly with common object — dispute related to land — assault and commission of murder with common intention by the accused/appellants — awarded sentence to life imprisonment under sec. Mr. Dattu. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. rioting with deadly weapon. Agrawal. Justice H. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 6 is comparable to the acquired land and have similar development potential — no reasoning why the deduction towards developmental charges restricted to 33% instead of the standard deduction of 50% to 67% applicable to agricultural land — matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh disposal — set aside the judgement of the High Court — appeal allowed. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. causing hurt and attempt to commit suicide — trial of A-1 (deceased wife) and A-2 on the allegation of developed illegal intimacy between them. State of Rajasthan Respondent(s).200/. 302 r/w sec.75. 1860 — sections 302 r/w 149. 323 r/w 149 and sec. 891 of 2006) Vishnu and others Appellant(s) Vs. decided on 9/30/2009. 3. 325 r/w 149.M. Justice V. 2009 SCCL.S. 2009 SCCL. Panchal. Justice B. 673 of 2001 With Criminal Appeal Nos.acre — High Court reduced the compensation with marginal reduction to Rs. 304I. 835-836 of 2002) Sonali Mukherjee Appellant Vs. 324 and 309 — culpable homicide not amounting to murder with common intention. grievous hurt.N. Justice J. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr.COM 3077(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 147 — punishment for murder.L. as a result of which accused persons committed murder of deceased — A-2 acquitted — High Court also acquitted A-1 of the offence under Section 302 but convicted her for the offence under Section 304 Part I — no evidence to prove that the death by poisoning was homicidal — injuries on the body of the deceased had nothing to do with the forcible administration of tablets to deceased — evidence about the illegal intimacy between A-1 and A-2 all hearsay — whole prosecution rests on suspicions and mere suspicion not enough to convict the accused persons — benefit of doubt to the accused persons — judgment of High Court and Trial Court for the conviction of A-1 set aside — appeal allowed and A-1 directed to be acquitted with discharging the BAIL-bonds of the accused.per acre — hence this appeal — no basis for calculating the value of compensation — no explanation why other sale transactions ignored — no finding that the land at serial No. decided on 9/15/2009. 149 & fine of . 200/-. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 323 r/w 149 — held that deceased died a homicidal death — opinion of medical officer relevant — testimony of first informant & that of witness in complete corroboration from the testimony of constable — cumulative effect of the circumstances proved that the intention of the unlawful assembly was to cause death of the deceased & to cause injuries to the injured witnesses — no interference with the orders of the courts below for the conviction of the appellants under sec. Justice B. decided on 10/8/2009. 2008 SCCL.Rs. 986 of 2007) Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and others Appellants Vs. Mr.I. Agrawal. 1952 — Section 11(2) — priority of payment of contributions over other debts — appellants advanced loan of Rs. simple imprisonment of 2 months under sec. assets of the establishment. 2009 SCCL.COM 3110(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1860 — Section 302 read with Sections 149. Lodha. 6893 of 2009 With Civil Appeal No. the right of property vests in the pledgee so far as necessary to secure debt — the sugar bags pledged with the appellant-bank continued to be movable property i. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. 4000 lacs to sugar mill — executed deed of pledge and also promissory note for payment of amount — failure of the employer to pay the dues of provident fund — warrant of attachment executed by the Enforcement Officer — whether the sugar bags pledged by Sugar Mills in favour of appellant Bank as security for repayment of the loan together with interest could be attached and sold for realization of the dues of provident funds etc.S.COM 3092(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. Justice G. State of Maharashtra Respondent. 6894 of 2009) Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd.N. Subject Index: Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Appellant Vs.K.e. 325 r/w 149. Justice R. decided on 10/8/2009. R. for 3 months under sec. 302 r/w 149 — appeal dismissed — BAIL applications not granted. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others Respondents.M. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. . Justice D. Justice Aftab Alam. 148 and Section 326 read with Section 149 — murder. payable by the employer — the priority clause under Section 11 operative against statutory as well as non-statutory and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge — title of the property remained with the Sugar Mills and only limited interest passed on to the appellant Bank as security for repayment of the loan — in a contract of pawn. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. which could be attached and sold by the Recovery Officer — appeals dismissed. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2009 SCCL. 1988 — granted BAIL and permission to go to Hong Kong after depositing the passport of respondent 4 and 5 (mother and wife) — application of respondents 4 and 5 rejected by the appellant for releasing their passports till returning of respondent-3 from abroad — High Court allowed the petition after giving unjustified and unnecessary remarks to the judgement of the appellant — hence this appeal — held assuming that the order passed by the appellant was wrong. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. 2120 of 2009) Suman Appellant Vs. A-10 and A-11 under Sections 148 and 326 read with Section 149 upheld but under Section 302 read with 149 set aside. even then the High Court ought to have either modified or set aside the order.P. A-6. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2009 SCCL. State of Rajasthan and another . I.COM 3124(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.COM 3137(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1860 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. decided on 9/23/2008. Jain Appellant Vs.unlawful assembly with common object. but the High Court not justified in passing totally unmerited. High Court of Delhi Through Registrar General and others Respondents. 521 of 2004) V. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. harsh and castigating remarks against the appellant — the impugned order set aside to the extent of expunging the remarks made against the appellant in the order — appeal allowed. A-5.C — plea of alibi taken by A-2 not proved — held that the judgment of the trial court acquitting all the accused persons suffered from factual and legal errors — conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court against A-2.K. Subject Index: Remarks — expunging and deleting the same — respondent-3 (NRI) charge-sheeted by the CBI under Section 120-B read with Sections 420/467/468 of IPC. A-3 and A-12 maintained and conviction of A-4. rioting with deadly weapon — incident took place between the two rival political factions — the trial court rejected the evidence of eye-witnesses holding that because of a sudden attack everybody tried to run away from the accused to save their life and in a situation like this they must not have been in a position to see actually who assaulted them — High Court convicted all the present appellants and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and different period of sentence — hence this appeal — evidence of the eye-witnesses broadly corroborated by the medical evidence in respect of the deceased as well as the injuries sustained by them — proved beyond doubt that all the eight appellants are guilty of the offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 326 read with Section 149. derogatory. Respondents.V. 1860 — Section 498A — on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent No. 1973 — Section 319 — power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence — Indian Penal Code. National Investigation Agency Respondent. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. wings and front organizations to be an "unlawful association" — learned Single Judge dismissed the petitioner's BAIL application on the ground of jurisdiction — Session Judge (Special Court) extended the period of custody of petitioner for further 60 days for completion of investigation — appeal — held the grant of statutory BAIL to be rejected since.P. decided on 11/19/2009. if from the evidence collected the Court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused — whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC — Yes — statements of complainant's parents in corroboration with that of the complainant.P. Cr. Justice R. 2009 SCCL. can be proceeded against under Section 319 Cr. 686 of . Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.C. Singhvi. but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case. 1 crore to an extremist organization. 2 and statements recorded. 1967 — Section 43D(2)(b) read with Section 167. the Investigating Officer filed chargesheet only against her in-laws but not against the appellant — application filed by the respondent No. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in demand of dowry. DHD(J) to purchase arms and ammunitions — Government of India issued notification for declaring the DHD(J) along with its factions.COM 3191(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2009 SCCL. 7399 of 2009) Redaul Hussain Khan Petitioner Vs. physical and mental harassment — no interference in the orders of the Courts below — appeal dismissed. Subject Index: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. — petitioner arrested for sending Rs. 7343 of 2009 With SLP (Criminal) No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2 for issuing process against the appellant — Judicial Magistrate & Session Judge directed the appellant be summoned through BAILable warrant — appellant challenged the revisional order as police not filed chargesheet against her — held that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence.COM 3159(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. decided on 11/13/2009.C. the learned Sessions Judge (Special Court) had the jurisdiction to extend the time for completion of the investigation — appeal dismissed.S. Justice G. 302. 85-86 of 2006 With Criminal Appeal No. 87. 201. criminal conspiracy with common intention — trial court convicted & awarded death sentence to all the 3 accused/appellants for brutally assaulting PW-4 & PW-8 and murdering 3 persons of the family with inflicting blows of knives — HC affirmed the death sentence of all the 3 accused — appeal — PW-4 found the most natural witness who had the opportunity to watch the dastardly attack & also identified all the 3 accused persons — held the evidence of the 2 eye-witnesses as credible & completely fixes the criminal liability on the parts of the accused persons — the conviction orders of the trial court and of the HC confirmed as against all the 3 accused/appellants — award of death sentence converted to life imprisonment for not less than 25 years of actual imprisonment to A-1 & A-3 and actual punishment of 20 years to A-2 — appeals dismissed with modification in sentences. the only possible view in the facts of the case — acquittal of 6 accused set aside and their conviction recorded by the trial Court restored. 1860 — Sections 149. 452 r/w 120-B and 34 — murder. 91-94 of 2006) . Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.P. Justice A. thus. tied the deceased persons with rope and were taken to the bank of the river Ganges. 2009 SCCL.COM 3236(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. Patnaik. pushed in the boats. brutally murdered all of them and thrown in the river Ganges — PW-14/victim jumped into the stream and saved his life — trial Court convicted all the 18 accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment — High Court acquitted all the accused without analyzing the entire evidences — delay in giving statement by PW-14 fully explained — evidence of PW-14 and PW-27. Ram Sajivan and others Respondents. 2009 SCCL. Justice V. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.(s) 1026 of 2008) Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari and another Appellant(s) Vs.COM 3228(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s). 1860 — sections 302. 364 — accused/appellants committed dacoities in the Harijan locality. no iota of doubt regarding their participation in crime — held the trial Court's view.2002) State of U. assault. 307. while benefit of doubt given to other 12 accused — appeal partly allowed. decided on 12/10/2009. head constable concluded that the accused were squarely responsible for committing such a ghastly crime — 6 accused named by PW-14 in corroboration from the testimony of PW-27.K. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.S. Appellant Vs. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma. decided on 12/4/2009. 2415 of 2009) HDFC Bank Ltd. 1 for purchase of 6 Krishna Electronic Sensor Paver Finishers — 6 cheques for the loan amount drawn in the name of M/s.03.000/. J. 468. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr. Mannan @ J. 109. were handed over to the Respondent No.Mohd.40. 1 was not required — appeal — held that on the strength of an order granting Anticipatory BAIL. 1 on the ground that the investigating agency had already seized all relevant and vital documents. decided on 8/6/2009. 1999 — Section 3(1) read 2(e).J. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 3(2) read with Section 120-B of IPC — Arms Act — Section 3 & 7.I. A. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. 307. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Justice Deepak Verma. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 25(1B) — all the 8 accused convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence that resulted in the death of 3 persons and caused grievous injury to 7 — appeal by State for imposition of capital sentence on A-5. . the custodial interrogation of the Respondent No. decided on 12/16/2009.I. Krishna Engineering Works. State of Maharashtra Respondent. 2009 SCCL. for life — A-7 sentenced to capital punishment by the trial Court which was altered by High Court to R. 473 read with Section 120-B — offence under — appeal filed for cancellation of order granting anticipatory BAIL to the respondent No.2 — confessional statements of accused person proved their active participation in the crime — recovery of weapons used in the crime — reliance on the testimony of eye-witnesses — High Court awarded life imprisonment in place of death sentence — order of acquittal passed by High Court for A-5 and A-6 set aside and directed to undergo R. Farooq Abdul Gafur and another Appellants Vs.sanctioned to the respondent No. 1 — loan of Rs. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. in accordance with law— appeal allowed.COM 3240(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. for life — no interference with the order of High Court in respect of A-7 — sentence of imprisonment of life to A-8 maintained. an accused against whom charge has been framed. 1 — learned Single Judge granted anticipatory BAIL to the respondent No. 120-B/34 — MCOC Act. Justice S. 1860 — Sections 419.B.M. cannot avoid appearing before the trial court — order of the High Court modified to the extent that the Respondent No. 1 — no payment was received by M/s Krishna Engineering Works — FIR drawn up against the respondent No. 1 shall surrender before the Trial Court forthwith and pray for regular BAIL and the Trial Court shall dispose of the same on merits. 2. A-6 (contract killers working for chotta Shakeel and Faheem) & A-7 (agent of ISI) — Cri A. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. John Paul and another Respondents.1 — execution of the death sentence makes miscarriage of justice irrevocable — Cr. Section 25(1A). 420. 1860 — Section 302. benefit given to the accused and acquitted him of all the charges — High Court reversed the trial Court's judgement of acquittal and convicted the accused — appeal — this Court opined that when a shot was fired from a 12-bore gun and if no pellet was recovered. 30 and 38 — offences under — Section 36A(4) read with Section 167(2). 1985 — Sections 24. 1 . then the trial court rightly concluded that the injuries were not caused by a fire arm — held that as per the facts of the case. 29.S. 97 and 100 — right to private defence — dispute regarding partition of land between both the parties which led to the unfortunate incident resulting death of the deceased when appellant fired from his licensed gun — the factum of the incident not been denied by the accused and claimed right of private defence — trial Court held the presence of both eye-witnesses PW7 and PW8 at the time of alleged occurrence highly doubtful as no pellet recovered from the injuries of these witnesses and thus. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly (Vacation Bench). the appellant had the serious apprehension of death or at least the grievous hurt when he exercised his right of private defence to save himself. decided on 8/20/2009. Chauhan. 2010 SCCL.COM 85(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Intelligence Officer. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Subject Index: NDPS Act. The role attributed to the appellant fully covered by his right of private defence — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside and that of the trial Court restored — appeal allowed — acquittal. 1973 — BAIL application filed under — Special Judge remanded the appellant to judicial custody and the period extended from time to time on the applications of the Investigation Bureau — total custody of the appellant brought to 1 year and 2 days — appellant moved BAIL application on the ground that the investigation not been completed within the stipulated period of time fixed by the Special Judge — BAIL application rejected by the trial Court and also by the High Court — appeal — held that the first application for extension of period for completion of investigation been filed by the investigating officer of respondent No. CrPC. Narcotic Control Bureau and another Respondents. decided on 1/15/2010. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Dr.2010 SCCL. thus. State of Punjab and another Respondents. 1860 — Sections 96. 20082009 of 2008) Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Appellant Vs. 1057 of 2002) Darshan Singh Appellant Vs. the possibility of these injuries on their person having been fabricated at a later stage cannot be ruled out — trial Court further held that the possibility of the injuries having been caused to deceased by the appellant in exercise of private defence cannot ruled out.COM 35(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice P. nor the compelling reasons which required an extension of custody beyond 180 days — no notices were issued to the appellant before granting applications for the extension of the custody — held that the extensions granted to the investigating department under the proviso to Section 36A (4) did not satisfy the conditions laid down therein — order of the Special Judge and of the High Court set aside — directed the appellant be released on BAIL — appeal allowed. Subject Index: Consumer Protection Act. or in the name of the assured. it may not be relevant for deciding the maintainability of a complaint under the Act but. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Chief Justice. and another Respondents. Panchal.with interest @12% p. the first respondent executed a Letter of Subrogation-cum-Special Power of Attorney in favour of the second respondent — respondents 1 & 2 filed complaint against the appellant for settlement of compensation claim — District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.47. Jain. in the absence of any proof of negligence? — this Court held that whether the document executed by the assured in favour of the insurer is a subrogation simpliciter. can lodge a complaint under the Act. Mr. on the basis of subrogation — the National Commission affirmed the orders of the lower Foras — appeal — where the letter of subrogation executed by an assured in favour of the insurer whether the document ceases to be a subrogation and becomes an assignment? — whether the insurer as subrogee. where the consignor establishes loss or damage or non-delivery of goods. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Raveendran. either in the name of the assured. the insurer cannot in its own name maintain a complaint before a consumer forum — as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act 1865. to the insurer. it is deemed that negligence on the . Mr. 1865 — Section 9 — the first respondent entrusted a consignment of hosiery cotton yarn to the appellant for transportation and delivery to a consignee at Calcutta — said consignment was insured by the second respondent covering transit risks — consignment completely damaged as the goods vehicle met with an accident — on the basis of a surveyor's certificate the second respondent settled the claim of the first respondent and on receiving the payment. decided on 2/17/2010. 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — deficiency in service/negligence — Careers Act. 5611 of 2010) Economic Transport Organization. M/s. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr.a.436/. or in the joint names of the insurer and assured as co-complainants? — Yes — whether the insurer as the assignee can file a complaint either in its own name.without indicating the progress of the investigation. 4. Mr. Justice D. 2010 SCCL.M. Delhi Appellant Vs. or by joining the assured as a co-complainant — whether relief could be granted in a complaint against the carrier/service provider. V. or a subrogation-cumassignment. Justice J. Justice R.K.COM 121(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. it was confirmed that the Appellant No. State of West Bengal Respondent. Subject Index: Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act. C.COM 287(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.I. 2 to be released and the BAIL application filed on his behalf disposed of. Name of the Judge: For the Appellants : S. 3224 of 2010) Mukesh Kishanpuria Petitioner Vs. Rajesh. 6426 of 2010 In Criminal Appeal No. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. 1950 — Article 21 — a person should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish prima facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent. Vikas Bansal. 2 had already been tried along with adults and convicted under Sections 302/34. 326/34 and 324/34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment.2 was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence — the juvenile. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another .COM 269(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 326.) No. appellant No. Sr. 959 of 2010 With Criminal Appeal No. 960 of 2010) Rabindra Nath Singh Appellant with State of Bihar through C. 1305 of 2009) Mohan Mali and another Appellants Vs. Sunny Chaudhary an. Appellant Vs. 2007 — Sections 7A. 2010 SCCL. decided on 4/28/2010. he may file an application for interim BAIL pending disposal of the regular BAIL application. 2010 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. this Court directed the appellant No.D.B. with him For the Respondent : Pramod Swarup. 1860 — Sections 302.COM 289(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2000 and Rules. Subject Index: (A) Criminal Procedure Code. Patnaik. 2010 SCCL. 1973 — Section 438 — petition under — for grant of anticipatory BAIL — rejected by the High Court — appeal — this Court held that the petitioner may apply for regular BAIL before the Court concerned and alongwith the said application. Advocates. 15 and 64 read with Rule 98 — claim of juvenility and disposal of cases of juveniles in conflict with law — Indian Penal Code. Respondent. accordingly. Singh. (B) Constitution of India. decided on 5/3/2010. State of M. Dubey.K. Advocate.P.K. Justice A. Dharm Singh and Yogesh Tiwari. Advocate.part of the carrier is established — held no interference to the impugned orders of the National Forum — appeal dismissed. 324 read with Section 34 — conviction and sentence under — upon due verification. Sr. out of which he has already undergone about 9 years of the sentence — by applying the provisions of Rule 98 read with Section 15 and 64 of the 2000 Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.Respondents. 1860 — Section 302 read with Section 120-B and Section 27 of the Arms Act — cognizance for the offence under — whether examination of all witnesses cited in the complaint is sine qua non for taking cognizance by a Magistrate in a . 1158 of 2010) Shivjee Singh Appellant Vs. Justice G. State of Haryana and others etc. were not sufficient for the purpose of cancellation of BAIL granted earlier — held that within the first 15 days of arrest the Magistrate may remand the accused either to judicial custody or police custody for a given number of days. the High Court rejected the BAIL granted to the appellant and allowed the application of the SHO for police remand of the accused for 3 days — appeal — no allegation that any attempt had been made after the Appellants were granted BAIL to recover the articles alleged to have been given to the Appellant No. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Justice Cyriac Joseph.COM 390(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.S. Subject Index: Bail application — granted — despite the clear direction of this Court that no further BAIL application of the accused shall be entertained. Patnaik. 2010 SCCL. 406. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Nagendra Tiwary and others Respondents. but once the period of 15 days expires. Appellants Vs. decided on 7/6/2010. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr.COM 318(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. Respondents. the Magistrate cannot pass orders for police remand — impugned orders directing cancellation of BAIL and re-arrest passed by the High Court set aside — appeals allowed. 2010 SCCL. 1860 — Sections 498-A. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. 988989 of 2010) Devender Kumar and another etc. decided on 5/5/2010. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 506 read with Section 34 — FIR registered under — the learned Magistrate granted BAIL to the appellant. However. the High Court has granted BAIL to the respondent-accused which amounts to contempt of order of this Court — impugned orders of the High Court set aside — BAIL application of the respondent-accused cancelled — appeals allowed.K. decided on 5/3/2010. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1973 — Section 202(1) and (2) — for issuance of process — IPC.1 at the time of marriage with the complainant — this Court viewed that the direction of the High Court for arrest of the Appellants on the ground that disclosures have been made by the Appellants and that their police custody was necessary for recovery of the same. 397.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory BAIL which was challenged by the petitioner — the High Court upheld the order of the trial court granting anticipatory BAIL to the Respondent Nos.R. no case has been made out for allowing the petitioner's . the learned Single Judge held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance against the respondents without requiring the appellant to examine all the witnesses and remitted the matter to the concerned court for passing appropriate order after making further inquiry in the light of proviso to Section 202(2) Cr. 468 and 471 I.P.2 and his associates together with a mob of about 20 persons carrying sticks. However.C. scythes and arms.case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions — the appellant's son was said to have been killed by respondent Nos. and threatened to dispossess them by force from the said land. Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against respondent Nos. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Consequence of such non-examination is to be considered at the trial and not at the stage of issuing process — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.66. were sought to be added at a later stage of investigation.COM 392(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2 and 3 in connection with the F.C. 1 to 4. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. the police submitted final form with the finding that they had no clue about the culprits.I. — hence. Subject Index: Anticipatory BAIL — granted — appeal against the said order — the Respondent No. State of Gujarat and others Respondents.1 to 4 for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and directed issue of non BAILable warrants against them. After conducting investigation. illegally entered into Nidhwad Survey No. Justice Cyriac Joseph. the petition — this Court observed that on account of the different versions noticed in the three different complaints made in respect of the incident and that allegations with regard to offences under Sections 395. which the complainant contended belonging to him and his family members.P. 467. — appeal — held that examination of all the witnesses cited in the complaint or whose names are disclosed by the complainant in furtherance of the direction given by the Magistrate in terms of proviso to Section 202(2) is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance and issue of process against the persons named as accused in the complaint. 2010 SCCL. decided on 7/8/2010. Immediately after the said incident the petitioner tried to lodge a complaint but such complaint was not registered and within half an hour thereafter the mob came back and assaulted the complainant and his associates with sticks and scythes and caused serious injuries to them — FIR was registered — the trial Court allowed the prayer of the Respondent Nos. the appellant filed a protest petition — After considering the statements of the appellant and two witnesses. Thereupon. 1923 of 2010) Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel Petitioner/Appellant Vs. directed the State Government to recover the amount of Rs. neither the accused has surrendered nor he has been taken into custody — the CBI and Director General of Police are directed to execute the order of this Court — petition dismissed.3.6408 of 2006) Jaywant P.000/. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr.K. 2010 SCCL. 4 and 5 and the Petitioner. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. decided on 7/28/2010. decided on 8/5/2010.45. which indicated hairline fracture on his ribs. the police registered a case against her son at the behest of Abbas Ali and illegally detained him in policy custody till he was released on BAIL — the Commission observed the Doctor's evidence that the Baban was treated for tenderness over the left anterior chest.COM 532(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). — petition dismissed.COM 551(Case/Appeal No: SLP Criminal No.from the respondents and to pay the same to the complainant — the High Court affirmed the said orders — hence.C. State of Bihar thru CBI Respondent(s). Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Dr. 960 of 2010) Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav Appellant(s) Vs. Sankpal Petitioner Vs. 2010 SCCL. — petition dismissed. therefore. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.127-130 . Suman Gholap and others Respondent(s). while holding that there had been violation of Baban's human rights at the hands of the Respondent Nos. Justice A.1 had been physically tortured while in custody in violation of the norms relating to custody of persons arrested or detained in connection with any offence — held no interference with the order of the Commission or the High Court.P. 2010 SCCL. Patnaik.application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr. Subject Index: Protection of Human Rights Act. the petition — sufficient material on record duly looked into by the Commission and the High Court that the son of the Respondent No. Subject Index: Review Petition — seeking review of this Court's order whereby the impugned judgment granting BAIL to the petitioner set aside — application for exemption from surrendering — despite cancellation of BAIL of the accused by this Court.COM 557(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.1 filed complaint before the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission alleging that instead of recording the complaint made by her or her son against Abbas Ali. 1993 — section 12(a) — the complainant/respondent no. 24 of 2005) Reserve Bank of India Appellant Vs.3. 3 & 4 were sentenced to death while other accused were awarded different punishment for different offences. 3 & 4 went to the extent of sprinkling petrol in a bus full of girl students and setting it on fire with the students still inside the bus. Singhvi and Hon'ble Dr.K.1632-1634 of 2010) C.A.H. decided on 8/12/2010. Justice G. Subject Index: Banking Regulation Act. etc. 149. the Ex-Chairman of the Bank. as well as by the complainant. Appellants. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Further. and others Respondents. 1992 — sections 3 & 4 — a demonstration by the appellants which had started peacefully.1486 of 2003 with Crl. 1860 — sections 147.2 to A.2. Justice B. Bank Deposit. No. 1973 — section 439 — BAIL application under — in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by respondent No. accused Nos. Coope.A/C/H. The presence of A.of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 307.COM 576(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. . Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Muniappan and others Appellants Vs. thus.2 to4 alongwith other sentences — appeal — the damage caused to the public transport vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained part of one and the same incident — all the accused for whom Test Identification Parades were conducted were identified by some of the witnesses in the jail and were also identified by some of the eye witnesses/injured witnesses in the court — the presence of the accused had also been established by press and media persons who were present at the scene of the occurrence. Prasad. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Chauhan. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of death against accused Nos. decided on 8/30/2010. 3 & 4. no interference with the punishment of death sentence awarded to A-2. Justice C.4 with the other accused at the place of agitation stands established — A-4 kept the engine of the motor cycle running only to escape from the scene of occurrence along with A-2 and A-3 which indicate the mind of the accused to commit the offence and to flee from the scene of occurrence to avoid the clutches of law — held no justification for the commission of such a brutal offence which shows the highest degree of depravity and brutality on the part of A-2. & S. GM. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. A.K. 1949 — infringement of the provisions of — Criminal Procedure Code. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent with D. 3 & 4 however. the sentences of other appellants reduced to the period already undergone — appeals dismissed. 3 students burnt alive inside the bus and some of the girls students got burn injuries — the trial court convicted several accused under various offences and A-2.S.S. 2010 SCCL. took an ugly turn when the appellants started damaging public transport vehicles. 302 — Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act. Rajendran and others etc. thus.S. decided on 10/26/2010.should have their deposits released as and when funds were received by the respondent No.respondent No. 9345.COM 778(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).9350-9351 of 2010) Association of Leasing & Financial Service Companies Appellant(s) Vs. Justice D.. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. 3 but made a consequential order that depositors who had made deposits of less than Rs. more so. 1860 — section 302 — punishment of murder — accused facing trial for an offence punishable under — the accused/respondent No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 9344 of 2010 With C. when even charges have not yet been framed — impugned order set aside and BAIL granted to the accused cancelled — appeal allowed. Justice Swatanter Kumar .2086 of 2010) Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Appellant(s) Vs.9347. the appellant challenged the amendment of 2001 as ultra vires the legislative competence of the Parliament — the High Court dismissed the writ petition — appeals — whether the State .COM 779(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No (s).9346. Jain and Hon'ble Dr.K. giving rise to a reasonable belief that he had committed the murder — the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected three BAIL applications of the accused — this Court held that BAIL under Section 439 of the Code should not have been granted to the accused. Hon'ble Mr.cooperative bank — appeal — this court opined that the consequences of the directions of the High Court are in way beyond the scope of an application for BAIL filed by an accused under Section 439 of the Cr. Justice H. Justice K. 65(105) (zm) and 66 — levy of Service Tax on leasing and hire purchase — validity of the provisions under — in challenge — Constitution of India. did not cancel the BAIL granted to respondent No.000/.A Nos. Code. 10. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice.L.P. 1950 — Article 366 (29A) — tax on the sale or purchase of goods — being aggrieved by the inclusion of hire-purchase and leasing services within the service tax net. however. 4 — granted — the High Court. He was seen coming out of the victim's house by a neighbour around the time of the alleged occurrence. Subject Index: Finance Act. decided on 10/29/2010. 1973 — section 439 — application for grant of regular BAIL — allowed — appeal against — Indian Penal Code.3 . — impugned order set aside — appeal allowed. Dattu. Union of India & others Respondent(s). 2010 SCCL. it is not open to the High Court to pass orders which could affect the working of Banks all over the country.9348. 1994 — sections 65(12). 2010 SCCL.1 is alleged to have committed a heinous crime of killing an old helpless lady by strangulation. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure.C. Ashis Chatterjee & another Respondent(s). Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr.COM 888(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). Panicker Radhakrishnan. List II — appeals dismissed.C. then it would be unreasonable to compel the accused to surrender before the trial court and again apply for regular BAIL.Legislature has the exclusive competence to levy tax on "financial leasing services" under Entry 54. does not mention anything about the duration to which a direction for release on BAIL in the event of arrest can be granted. the impugned tax does not cease to be service tax and nor does it become tax on hire-purchase/ leasing transactions under Article 366(29A) read with Entry 54.C.P. The alleged incident took place after eight days of the alleged incident of instigation — the High Court declined anticipatory BAIL to the appellant — appeal — whether the powers under section 438 Cr. The order granting anticipatory BAIL is a direction specifically to release the accused on BAIL in the event of his arrest — held that once the accused is released on BAIL by the trial court.S. State of Maharashtra & others Respondent(s). are subject to limitation of section 437 Cr. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.P. 1973 — section 438 — ambit and scope of — to consider — the appellant along with his brother instigated their party workers which led to killing of one person.P. List II — Yes — equipment Leasing and Hire-Purchase Finance are activities of long term financing and they fall within the ambit of "banking and other financial services" — in case of financial leasing including equipment leasing and hire-purchase. 2271 of 2010) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Appellant(s) Vs. It is also contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution — the impugned judgment and order of the High Court declining anticipatory BAIL to the appellant set aside — the . Such amount is credited to the capital account of the lessor/ hire-purchase service provider. decided on 12/2/2010. the amount received as principal is not the consideration for services rendered.P. It is the interest/ finance charge which is treated as income or revenue and which is credited to the revenue account. 2010 SCCL. Such interest or finance charges together with the lease management fee/ processing fee/ documentation charges are treated as considerations for the services rendered and accordingly they constitute the value of taxable services on which service tax is made payable.C.C. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Merely because service tax is imposed on financial services with reference to "hiring/ interest" charges. — no — the courts considering the BAIL application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-a-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court — section 438 Cr. The validity of the restrictions that the accused released on anticipatory BAIL must submit himself to custody and only thereafter can apply for regular BAIL is contrary to the basic intention and spirit of section 438 Cr. Justice K. the appeal — the fact not disputed that the respondent is involved in more than one case of similar nature of rioting etc. — the impugned order set aside . no prima facie proof that the respondent was involved in the crime.COM 2(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). And it is yet to consider whether all members of the organization can be automatically held to be guilty — held no reason for denial of BAIL to the respondent — appeal dismissed. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar. 3 of 2011) State of Kerala Appellant(s) Vs.L. — the High Court did not record even a single reason confining the relief of releasing on BAIL only to the respondent.COM 56(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Subject Index: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Sudershan Reddy and Hon'ble Mr.L. Jacob and chopped off his right palm. of omitting to give information of the crime to the police. away from the place of the incident — no allegation that the respondent was one of the assailants.A.P. Even. decided on 1/25/2011. 326 r/w section 149 — punishment of rioting and grievous hurt shared with common object of unlawful assembly — the High Court granted BAIL to the respondent a sitting M. 2011 SCCL. Hence Section 43D(5) has not been violated — the Supreme Court opined that even a dentist can apply stitches in an emergency. The role attributed to the respondent is that he treated one of the injured assailants by suturing (stitching) his wound on the back after applying local anesthesia at a place 45 kms. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Prima facie the only offence that can be levelled against the respondent is under Section 202 I. 326 read with Section 149.appellant is directed to join the investigation and in the event of arrest the appellant shall be released on BAIL on his furnishing a personal bond — appeal allowed. IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment — hence..C.A. Raneef Respondent(s). decided on 1/3/2011. Justice B. 225 of 2011) Kanaka Rekha Naik Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mrs. though there are two appellants in the appeal preferred challenging the judgment of the trial Court — the Supreme Court opined that the order clearly reflects that the High Court was mainly impressed by the fact that the respondent is a sitting M. Manoj Kumar Pradhan & another Respondent(s). 2011 SCCL. Dr. 1967 — section 43 D(5) — application of — to consider — BAIL granted to the respondentdentist — under challenge — seven assailants came in a Maruti Van and assaulted Prof.J. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra. 1860 — sections 147. who has been convicted under Sections 147. T.. COM 247(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Chauhan. 748 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal No.753 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No.) No(s). Ajit Singh and another Respondents with Santosh Kumar Jaiswal & another Respondents. the Court is precluded from appointing any other independent specialized agency like the CBI to go into the same issues if the earlier investigation was not done as per the established procedure — no — whether the petitioner has made out a case for entrusting the investigation to the CBI — Yes — the investigation revealed that the alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati was done in order to eliminate him as he was the key witness in the criminal conspiracy of the abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi by the powerful and the influential accused persons. It is the definite case of the CBI that the abduction of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi and their subsequent murders as well as the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati are one series of acts. Justice P. Sudershan Reddy and Hon'ble Mr. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Dr. 2011 SCCL. Subject Index: Constitution of India. decided on 4/8/2011.S. Subject Index: Bail application — filed by the respondents allegedly involved in false encounter — the trial Court rejected the BAIL application however.752 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. State of Gujarat & others Respondent(s). and if two parts of the same transaction are investigated and prosecuted by different agencies. 1950 — Article 32 — writ petition filed under — by the petitioner — for directing the CBI to register a First Information Report and investigate into the fake encounter killing of her son — whether after filing of the charge-sheet by the State agency.115 of 2007) Narmada Bai Petitioner(s) Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.750 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No.749 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. Justice B.751 of 2011) Ravindra Pal Singh Appellant Vs. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.754 of 2011with Criminal Appeal No.COM 290(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl. the High Court granted BAIL to the accused — appeal — the Supreme Court opined that the allegations made against the respondents cannot be brushed aside at the stage and the High Court also ought to have taken into consideration the serious nature of the allegations. Justice B. the possibilities of undue influence being exerted on the witness for the prosecution at the instance of the police officials — impugned orders of the High Court set aside — appeals allowed.and the matter is remitted to the High Court for its fresh consideration in accordance with law — appeal allowed. 2011 SCCL. it may cause failure of justice not only . decided on 3/17/2011. Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan.COM 295(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 760. Drug-offenders. Justice V. B) Preventive detention — if the ordinary law of the land (Indian Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal with a situation. Justice Cyriac Joseph.S. 201 — Abkari Act — sections 57A(1)(ii). Immoral Traffic Offenders.in one case but in other trial as well — analysis of the materials showed several lacuna on the part of the investigation by the State Government — in light of the involvement of the police officials of State of Gujarat. Goondas. 762. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. recourse to a preventive detention law will be illegal. Sand Offenders. 755 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal Nos. the Supreme Court directed the Police Authorities of the Gujarat State to handover all the records of the case to the CBI for further investigation relating to the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati — writ petition allowed. State of Tamil Nadu Tr. & another Respondent(s). 1528 of 2005 With Criminal Appeal No. Justice Markandey Katju. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. decided on 4/4/2011. decided on 4/5/2011. 328. 756. 1860 — sections 324. to Govt. 1532 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. 2011 SCCL. and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act. 864 of 2011) Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan Appellant with Manikantan @ Kochani Appellant with Manoharan Appellant with Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Appellant Vs. 58 — adulteration of liquor or . 759. nor whether the BAIL orders were passed in respect of the co-accused on the same case. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mrs. nor whether the BAIL orders were passed in respect of other co-accused in cases on the same footing as the case of the accused — the detention order in question contained ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused coming out on BAIL and there was no relevant material on which the detention order was passed — impugned detention order quashed — appeal allowed. State of Kerala Respondent.COM 291(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. Hon'ble Mr. 55(h) & (i). 2011 SCCL. 326. Sec. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: A) Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers. 1982 — detention order under — against the detenue — for selling expired drugs after tampering with the labels and printing fresh labels showing them as non-expired drugs — neither the date of the alleged BAIL orders has been mentioned in the detention order. nor the BAIL application number. 763 & 764 of 2011) Rekha Appellant(s) Vs. Subject Index: A) IPC. 1531 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. Forest Offenders. 757. Gokhale. Subject Index: Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 — sections 2(c). death of as many as 31 persons was caused. etc — conviction and sentence for commission of the offence under — the prosecution alleged that the conspiracy was hatched amongst all the accused and because of the criminal act on the part of the accused of mixing poisonous methyl spirit. 1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody — the analysis of affidavits of the Inspector of Police.intoxicating drug with noxious substances. B) Abkari Act — section 57A (1)(ii) — if. 1376 of 2004) Muttu Karuppan Appellant(s) Vs.1/elected MLA filed Contempt Application before the High Court stating that on the direction. the extreme penalty of death also is provided. Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police show that there is no acceptable material that the affidavit containing wrong information filed . permitted to be mixed and was being regularly mixed with liquor. supervision and knowledge of the appellant Respondent No.L. decided on 4/15/2011. 2011 SCCL. 2 moved an application to cancel the BAIL granted to him on the basis of false statement thereby prevented him from attending the Assembly — the High Court held the appellant and Respondent No. as a result of act of mixing of the liquor with noxious or dangerous substance death is caused.COM 330(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & another Respondent(s). Justice H. The persons mixing had the knowledge that methanol was a dangerous substance and it is proved that as a result of mixing of methanol with the liquor and as a result of consuming such liquor as many as 31 persons lost their lives and number of others suffered grievous injuries — no question about the absence of conspiracy — PW53 gave a complete graphic description of the occurrence and his evidence was not shaken in any manner in his cross-examination — the medical certificates as also the post-mortem reports have been meticulously dealt with the evidence of the witness proving such certificates as also the evidence of the doctors — the Supreme Court found no instance of inadmissible evidence having been accepted or some material evidence having been ignored by the Courts below — conviction orders confirmed — appeals disposed.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 2(c) and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 12 of the Act — appeal — in respect of violence on the day of election. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. 12 — 'criminal contempt' — conviction and sentence under — Respondent No. as many as 266 persons suffered grievous injuries while 5 persons lost their eye sight completely — the accused persons have not offered any evidence so as to discharge the burden put against them under section 57A (1) (v) — the prosecution has clearly proved that there was a noxious substance which was likely to endanger the human life and that substance was mixed. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Respondent No. Ltd. 985986 of 2011) . Tantia Construction Pvt. converting the same into a completely new project. thus. 2011 SCCL. decided on 4/18/2011. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. to proceed on the basis that the Respondent Company was willing to undertake the entire work at the old rates was an error of judgment and the termination of the contract on the basis of said supposition was unjustified and was rightly set aside — SLP dismissed — no costs.COM 359(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). particularly when the additional work was not part of the original Tender — allowed — hence.18914 of 2010) Union of India & others Petitioners Vs. Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Respondent No. Subject Index: Risk and Cost Tender — for construction of a Rail overBridge at BAILey Road — contract awarded to the respondent company — alteration of the plan — writ petition filed challenging the directions given by the Railway Authorities for completion of the entire work.COM 347(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (C) No. Justice Cyriac Joseph. 2 before the High Court — impugned order of the High Court qua the appellant set aside — appeal allowed. 2 for cancellation of BAIL and stay of BAIL order was made at the instance of the Commissioner of Police — the author of the affidavit. Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police merely because both of them attended the office of the Public Prosecutor for preparation of an application for cancellation of BAIL based on the affidavit of the Inspector of Police. the petition — the delay occasioned in starting the work was not on account of any fault or lapses on the part of the Respondent Company. 2 specifically denied the allegation that the application for cancellation of BAIL was moved under the direction. it cannot be presumed and concluded that the appellant was responsible for giving incorrect information by Respondent No.by Respondent No. including the extended work on the contention that having failed to get any suitable response to the fresh Tender floated in respect of the additional work. supervision and knowledge of the appellant — the Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific reference about consultation with the Commissioner of Police or direction to the two officers. but on account of the fact that the project design of the work to be undertaken could not be completed and ultimately involved change in the design itself — the Respondent Company satisfactorily explained their position regarding their offer being confined only to the balance work of the original Tender and not to the extended work — the entire design of the Rail Over-Bridge was altered. 2011 SCCL. it was not open to the Petitioners to compel it to complete the same at an arbitrarily low price. they appear to have operated as criminals. but far from performing their duty.CBI Hyderabad Appellant(s) Vs. Satyam Computer Services Limited — Corporate scam — fudging of the company accounts and manipulation of records — investigation entrusted to the CBI — the High Court enlarged the respondents A4 and A10 on BAIL by imposing certain conditions — hence. the High Court is not justified in granting BAIL — impugned order of the High Court granting BAIL in favour of the respondents A-4 and A-10 set aside — appeals allowed. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Chauhan. 2011 SCCL. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Dr. Appellant(s) Vs. 1860 — section 120-B r/w sections 409. Justice B. 1860 — sections 302/34. 477A — FIR registered under — against the then Chairman.N. Directors and Auditors of M/s. thus. 420. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mrs. the BAIL granted in favour of all the main accused have been cancelled and the Respondent Nos. The prosecution material collected during the investigation prima facie indicates that deceased was abducted during the day time and was taken to D. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.COM 601(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1994 of 2009 With Criminal Appeal No. decided on 5/13/2011. 1719 of 2011) Mrinal Das & others Appellant(s) Vs.COM 396(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. the appeals — the Supreme Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the magnitude of the scam.Nagar Police Station and from there he was taken to some unknown place where he was shot dead — the Supreme Court held that the accused/appellants are police personnel and it was their duty to uphold the law.S. . The State of Tripura Respondent(s).11741178 of 2011) Prakash Kadam & etc. A4 and A10 being external and internal auditors respectively. 120-B. 468. decided on 9/5/2011. etc. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & another Respondent(s). 364/34 — chargesheet filed under — against the appellants policemen accused of a contract killing being engaged by a private person to eliminate the deceased — BAIL application filed — the Sessions Court granted BAIL to the appellants but that was cancelled by the High Court — appeal — the accused version that the deceased was shot in a police encounter found to be false during the investigation. 467. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice P. their role being paramount in inflating processing assets and bank balances of M/s SCSL. Subramani Gopalakrishnan & another Respondent(s). decided on 4/21/2011. 2011 SCCL. the High Court was perfectly justified in cancelling the BAIL to the accused-appellants — appeal dismissed. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 471. the appeals — three eye-witnesses including PW-6 (approver) identified 6 offenders including 2 convictsappellants — the trial Court was of the view that the evidence of an approver contains full and correct version of the incident so far as participation of the accused (A-5) and (A-11). 149 — charges framed against the respondents for commission of the offences under — appeal against — the High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court framing charge against the respondent Nos. the appeals — whether proper charge was framed against the respondent Nos. 1660-1662 of 2011) Santosh Kumar Appellant Vs.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.L.COM 623(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in law in holding that it was obligatory for the trial court to have indicated in its order and the charge sheet the description of the offences for which one or the other accused had to be tried — nothing produced on record to suggest or indicate that the accused had misled by any error or omission in the Charge — impugned order of the High Court set aside and the order by which the accused except accused Subhash Singh are enlarged on interim BAIL is also set aside — appeals disposed. Gokhale. 3 to 8 — yes — having noticed the charge which was separately framed against each accused. 269 — Ranbir Penal Code — sections 302. Justice J. Justice H. 109. Justice P. however. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. State of J & K & others Respondent(s). Gokhale. from the eye-witnesses. the High Court is right in applying Section 34 IPC and basing conviction of six accused persons including the two convicted appellants — the Supreme Court found no inconsistency between the contents of the post-mortem examination report and the ocular evidence of the approver (PW-6) — conviction orders confirmed — appeals dismissed. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. there is no plausible reason by the trial Court as to why the other part of the statement of the approver could not be believed — the materials placed by the prosecution. 148. 2011 SCCL. Panchal and Hon'ble Mr. 268. the High Court confirmed the conviction of A5 and A-11 and set aside the acquittal of 4 persons and convicted them u/sec. 1989 — sections 267.M. 3 to 8 and remanded the case to the trial court to consider it in terms of Sections 267. the common intention can be inferred among the accused persons including the six persons identified by the eye-witnesses. However. thus. 1989 — hence. 268 and 269 of the CrPC. 302/34 IPC — hence. . 1860 — sections 302/34 — conviction and sentence for commission of the offences under — the trial Court acquitted ten accused persons and convicted A-5 and A-11 for the offences. particularly. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.L. Justice H. decided on 9/13/2011. 147. L. decided on 8/8/2011. 2011 SCCL.K.18711872 of 2011) Rajesh Kumar Appellant(s) Vs. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice J. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 1950 — Article 22(1) & (2) — CrPC.COM 663(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mrs. M.) No. Subject Index: Constitution of India. 1973 — section 167(2) — whether violation of — case related to Malegaon bomb blast — the appellant filed criminal application to enlarge her on BAIL on the ground of violation of the mandate of Article . Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1860 — section 302 — punishment of murder — conviction under — penalty of death sentence imposed upon the appellant for committing murder of his two minor children — appeal against — the State failed to show that the appellant is a continuing threat to society or that he is beyond reform and rehabilitation — the Supreme Court observed that there was no premeditation in the act of the accused and it is unknown under what circumstances accused entered the house of deceased and what prompted him to assault the boy. State through Govt. 1845 of 2011) Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur Appellant Vs. Justice D.COM 658(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl. thus held that the cruel manner in which the murder was committed cannot be the guiding factor in favour of death sentence — conviction of the appellant upheld and the death sentence imposed is substituted by the sentence of imprisonment for life — appeals allowed. of NCT of Delhi Respondent(s). Gokhale. State of Maharashtra Respondent. 1860 — section 307 — case registered under — against the appellant — CrPC. decided on 9/23/2011. Panchal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra. State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent.2011 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly . 5568 of 2011) Bhaskar Mishra Petitioner Vs. decided on 9/28/2011. 1973 — sections 438 and 439 — applications filed for anticipatory BAIL on several occassions — the Supreme Court directed that no further application for BAIL anticipatory or otherwise will be entertained by any Court until and unless the petitioner deposits a sum of Rupees One Lac before the Court of Sessions at Indore as a pre condition for the consideration of any BAIL application for the grant of regular BAIL — Special Leave Petition dismissed. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. 2011 SCCL.COM 662(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 10673 of 2011 in WP (Crl.) Nos. 2008 her disciple. 85 of 2010 and Writ Petition (Crl. 2008.) No. are non-cognizable. 2011 SCCL.1883 of 2011) . MP No. 2008 and prior to her arrest on October 23. Nasik on October 24. 1944 and the Customs Act. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar. 1962 — section 104(A) — question of BAILability — to consider — since all offences under the Central Excise Act.) No. the appeal — the material facts clearly showed that there was no arrest of the appellant on October 10. The appellant was called for interrogation which is not equivalent to her arrest and detention. which orders are not being challenged — appeal dismissed. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 1944.COM 682(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1944 — sections 9A. which include the power to release on BAIL upon arrest in respect of offences committed under the two enactments which are uniformly non-cognizable — the Supreme Court viewed that the offences under the 1944 Act and 1962 Act cannot be equated with offences under the Indian Penal Code which have been made noncognizable and non-bailable — the offences under the 1944 Act and Customs Act. decided on 9/30/2011. 76 & 84 of 2011 And Crl. because on being arrested on October 23. 1962 are held to be BAILable — writ petitions allowed. 66 of 2011 with Writ Petition (Crl.87.22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India and also on the ground of non-filing of charge sheet within 90 days as contemplated by Section 167(2) of the CrPC — rejected by the High Court — hence. and Section 13 of the Central Excise Act. Moreover the charge sheet was filed before the expiry of 90 days from the date of first remand — the appellant has not claimed BAIL on merits — no violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution. Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. 2008. 2008. 74 of 2010 With Writ Petition (Crl. the appellant was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 74.101 & 102 of 2011 with Writ Petition (Crl. Nasik on October 24. All throughout between October 10. Subject Index: Central Excise Act. there was no allegation of any ill treatment by the Police. 76 of 2011) Om Prakash & another Petitioner(s) with Choith Nanikram Harchandani Petitioner Vs.) Nos. 2008 and subsequent detention in custody is pursuant to order of remand by the Court. 2011 SCCL. 1962. Hon'ble Mr.COM 695(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Bhim Bhai Pasricha was with her — the Supreme Court found that when the appellant was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.) No. Union of India & another Respondent(s). Justice Altamas Kabir. 1962. vest Customs Officers and Excise Officers with the same powers as that of a Police Officer in charge of a Police Station. 51. are such offences BAILable — held yes — the provisions of Section 104(3) of the Customs Act. 37. 36. 13 — Customs Act. 412.) No.1 to disclose the source of the large sums of money handled by him — the total income of the Respondent No. lends support to the apprehension that. 2011 SCCL. section 392 — conviction and sentence under — in challenge — the fact not disputed that deceased Kartar Singh died on account of firearm injuries. if released on BAIL. Hassan Ali Khan & another Respondent(s).1 for having committed an offence punishable under — the High Court granted BAIL to the Respondent No. 1860 — section 302 r/w section 34. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. thus. 1949 of 2011 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl. 2002 — section 4 — the allegation against the Respondent No.1 may abscond — the order of the High Court set aside — BAIL granted to the respondent No. A-1 confessed before the PW-4 that A2-Pancho had shot dead deceased Kartar Singh with country made pistol — whether extrajudicial confession of A1-Pratham inspires confidence and whether there are other cogent circumstances on record. the appeal — no attempt on the part of the Respondent No. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs.1 — hence. Subject Index: Prevention of Money Laundering Act.COM 706(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.85.110.1050 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. decided on 9/30/2011.1 had not been able to establish that the same were neither the proceeds of crime nor untainted property — which the Respondent No.303/.COM 704(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. to support it — A1-Pratham is stated to have made a confession about 5 months after the incident — the Supreme Court viewed that even assuming that the recovery is proved in the absence of any other cogent evidence it is not sufficient to establish that A2-Pancho caused the fatal firearm injury to deceased Kartar Singh with the said pistol — no other evidence of sterling quality on record establishing the involvement of A-2.Union of India Appellant Vs. decided on 10/20/2011. State of Haryana Respondent. the Respondent No.68.1 for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 has been assessed at Rs.1222 of 2005) Pancho with Pratham Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 3841 of 2011) .1 cancelled — appeal allowed. after his original passport was directed to be deposited.1 had procured three different passports in his name. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. he cannot be convicted on the basis of the alleged extra-judicial confession of the coaccused A1-Pratham — impugned judgment and order of the lower Courts set aside — BAIL bonds of A-1 and A-2 discharged — appeals disposed. 2011 SCCL.by the Income Tax Department and the Respondent No. 1860 — section 366 r/w section 109 — conviction and sentence under — remission of sentence — applied for — the High Court refused to consider the same on the ground that on the date of issuance of notification for remission of sentence.C. Karkardooma. Delhi. & others Respondent(s). Justice Gyan Sudha Misra. Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. the bar contained in Section 195 of the Cr. 2011 SCCL. Thakur. 114 r/w section 34 — whether the grant of BAIL to the respondent in connection with the FIR registered against him would attract the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.M. therefore.P. committed no error of law or jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 211 and 500 IPC — hence. decided on 11/10/2011. decided on 11/14/2011. 109.S. Ethiraj Appellant(s) Vs.D. 20902093 of 2011) Abdul Rehman & others Appellant(s) Vs. the appeals — the BAIL proceedings conducted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.P. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 2179 of .COM 762(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice T.COM 760(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. clearly attracted to the complaint filed by the respondent — the Supreme Court held that so long as the proceedings are pending before the competent Court it would neither be just nor proper nor even legally permissible to allow parallel proceedings for prosecution of the appellants for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 211 IPC — the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and that passed by the High Court set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent directed to be transferred to the Court dealing with the charge sheet filed against the respondent — appeals allowed. Anees-Ul-Haq Respondent.C — to determine — the High Court held that the complaint in question is not barred and that the Metropolitan Magistrate. K. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. in connection with the case which the appellants had lodged with CAW Cell were judicial proceedings and the offence punishable under Section 211 IPC alleged to have been committed by the appellants related to the said proceedings. 2011 SCCL. the appeal — the Supreme Court viewed that the appellant is entitled to get his case of remission of sentence considered in accordance with the notification since he admittedly suffered more than six months of imprisonment prior to the date of judgment rendered by the High Court — appeal allowed. 1860 — sections 211. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. the petitioner was on BAIL — hence. 500. Secretary to Govt. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mrs. Delhi. 1973 — section 195 — IPC. 324. 2181 of 2011. Justice Altamas Kabir. 323.COM 1(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). decided on 11/23/2011. after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet — the appellants are directed to release on BAIL pending trial on stringent conditions — appeals disposed. Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. 109 — Prevention of Corruption Act. Subject Index: National Security Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 26 of 2012) Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima Appellant(s) Vs. 507 (2) — Arms Act — section 25(1) — Bombay Police Act — section 135 — the respondent and his companion charged for commission of the offences under — the BAIL order was passed nearly two years back and it is not the case of the complainant that the respondent has during this period either tried to tamper with the evidence or committed any other act that may affect the fairness of the trial — the order granting BAIL to the respondent not interfered — special leave petition dismissed. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr.2011. 148. 1988 — section 13(2) r/w section 13(i)(d) — the appellants facing trial in respect of the offences under — BAIL applications filed — rejection of — in challenge — refusal of BAIL is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution — the Supreme Court held that though the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer. 2182 of 2011) Sanjay Chandra Appellant with Gautam Doshi Appellant with Hari Nair Appellant withSurendra Pipara Appellant Vs. Ganga Maldebhai Odedara & Anr. CBI Respondent. 1860 — sections 302. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. 4010 of 2011) Jetha Bhaya Odedara Petitioner(s) Vs. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Respondent(s). 147. S. by itself not deter from enlarging the appellants on BAIL when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused. State of Manipur & Ors Respondent(s). 1980 — detention order passed against the appellant's husband under the provisions of — in challenge . that too. 1860 — sections 420-B. Subject Index: Bail order — cancellation of — petition filed for — IPC. Criminal Appeal No. L.S. would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence — no reason to detain the accused in custody. 468. 2011 SCCL. decided on 1/4/2012. Justice T. 149. Criminal Appeal No. if released on BAIL. 504. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2180 of 2011. Justice H. Criminal Appeal No. Chelameswar. that. 471. 307. 2012 SCCL. Justice G. Thakur. Justice J. decided on 12/16/2011.COM 789(Case/Appeal No: SLP (Crl) No(s). Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Dattu. Hon'ble Mr. COM 6(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. However. Prasad. Gokhale. much before the issuance of detention — nonplacing and non-consideration of the material as vital as the BAIL order vitiated the subjective decision of the detaining authority — detention order set aside — appeal allowed. in the mid way. 1908 —section 3 — conviction and sentence of the appellant to death for offences under — appeal filed —on the ground that he was not given a fair and impartial trial and was denied the right of a counsel — the appellant was initially assisted by a learned counsel employed by the learned Sessions Judge. to support the order of detention — the FIRs in respect of which the Appellant's husband had been arrested relate to the years 1994. 24 of 2012) Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Appellant(s) Vs. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Bootleggers. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2012 SCCL. the learned counsel disappeared before conclusion of the trial. The Court did not appoint any counsel to defend the accused — materials on record showed that the examination of witnesses from 1 to 56 was done when accused was not represented by an advocate and none of the 56 witnesses were cross-examined by the accused/appellant — the appellant/accused was not provided the assistance of a counsel in a substantial and meaningful sense — impugned conviction and sentence order set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court for fresh . of NCT) Delhi Respondent(s). State of Maharashtra & Ors Respondent(s).L. 1995 and 1998 respectively. Subject Index: IPC.— the grounds of detention do not disclose any material which was before the detaining authority. other than the fact that there was every likelihood of detenue being released on BAIL in connection with the cases in respect of which he had been arrested. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act. The State (Govt. There is no live link between the earlier incidents and the incident in respect of which the detention order had been passed — impugned detention order quashed — appeal allowed. Justice R. Justice H. whereas the order of detention passed against him almost after 12 years. decided on 1/4/2012. 1981 — detention order under — legality of — in challenge — the order releasing the detenu on BAIL in the crime registered on August 14. 2012 SCCL. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr.L.M.COM 9(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). Justice H. 1091 of 2006) Mohd. 1860 — sections 302/307 — Explosives Substances Act. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali Appellant(s) Vs. Subject Index: Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords. 2010 and the order relaxing the BAIL condition were passed by the Judicial Magistrate. decided on 1/11/2012. he was found to have 0. 1860 — sections 304 Part II. Justice R.M. Section 338 IPC and Section 337 IPC? — to consider — the two charges under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 338 IPC can legally co-exist in a case of single rash or negligent act where a rash or negligent act is done with the knowledge of likelihood of its dangerous consequences — the appellant was fully aware of the prosecution evidence relating to his rash and negligent driving in the drunken condition thus by not putting to the appellant expressly the CA report (Ex. 13181320 of 2007) Alister Anthony Pareira Appellant(s) Vs. the trial and conviction of the appellant got affected? — whether prosecution evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the offences by the appellant under Section 304 Part II. 1908 — section 3 — conviction and sentence order under — against the appellant — in challenge on the ground that he was not given a fair trial — whether it is a fit case in which direction be given for the de novo trial of the appellant after giving him the assistance of a counsel — the Supreme Court found that for an occurrence of 1997. State of Maharashtra Respondent(s). 2012 SCCL. 1860 — sections 302/307 — Explosive Substances Act. J. (Chandramauli Kr. decided on 1/12/2012. 338 and 337 — conviction and sentence of the accused appellant for commission of the offences under — the appellant while driving the car (corolla) rashly and negligently rammed the car over the pavement. the appellant was arrested in 1998 and since then he is in judicial custody.In view of the difference of opinion with regard to the issue.disposal in accordance with law — appeal allowed. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.) IPC. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.112% w/v liquor (ethyl alcohol) in his blood — whether it is permissible to try and convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC for a single act of the same transaction? — whether by not charging the appellant of 'drunken condition' and not putting to him the entire incriminting evidence let in by the prosecution. IPC. therefore. (H.Dattu J.) ORDER :. the appeal placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for being assigned to appropriate Bench. On his medical examination.L. opined that after such a distance of time it shall be travesty of justice to direct for the appellant's de novo trial — conviction order of the appellant set aside and directed that he be deported to his country in accordance with law — appeal allowed. caused death of seven persons and injuries to eight persons. 49) and the evidence of PW 1.COM 10(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant — the evidence and materials on record prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant can be attributed with knowledge that his act of driving the vehicle at a high speed in the rash or negligent manner was dangerous enough and he . Prasad. the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected — the second respondent was in jail since 24.08. Justice P. 2012 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. the appeal — what would be the status of a person. 654 of 2012) Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Appellant(s) Vs. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. 1860 — sections 302. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. State of U.II. Justice J. Chelameswar. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. 159 of 2012) Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Appellant(s) Vs. State of Gujarat & Others Respondent(s). Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. decided on 1/16/2012. & Another Respondent(s).COM 47(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.P. It is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled .2009. should the vehicle go out of control — the essential ingredients of sections 304 Part .2/accused — in challenge — whether the High Court was justified in enlarging the second respondent on BAIL after imposing certain conditions — the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases and most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial — the Supreme Court viewed that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents. Subject Index: Caste Certificate — benefit of the tribal certificate has been taken away from the appellant on the sole ground that he was the son of a Kshatriya father — hence.COM 28(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). decided on 1/18/2012. one of whose parents belongs to the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and the other does not come from scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and what would be the entitlement of a person from such parents to the benefits of affirmative action sanctioned by the Constitution — the Supreme Court viewed that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the determination of the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the facts adduced in each case. 338 and 337 were successfully established by the prosecution againt the appellant — appeals dismissed. the trial commenced by examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and State assured that trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable time — held no interference with the order of the High Court — appeal dismissed. 307 — offences under — order of the High Court granting BAIL to the respondent No. 2012 SCCL.knew that one result would very likely be that people who were asleep on the pavement may be hit. 2012 SCCL. 1860 — sections 406. & Another Respondent(s).P. Subject Index: Bail application — rejection of — in appeal — Indian Penal Code. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Chelameswar.B.caste/scheduled tribe — the orders passed by the High Court and the Scrutiny Committee are set aside and the case remitted to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh — appeal allowed. the magistrate is only required to see whether . Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Th. 467.I. or it is incumbent on the part of the convict to exposit and satisfy that such guillotining of the interdict has occasioned in `failure of justice' or culminated in causation of prejudice to him for the purpose of declaring that the trial was vitiated — to consider — in the committal proceedings in praesenti. decided on 2/17/2012. the same have not been approved and framed. 1989 and cognizance is directly taken by the Special Judge under the Act — in reference — whether non-compliance of the interdict as envisaged and engrafted under Section 193 of the Code nullifies the final verdict after the trial and warrants its total extinction resulting in retrial. Justice P. 458 of 2008) Rattiram & Others Appellant(s) Vs. 468. 1973 — section 193 — cognizance of offence by the Court of Session — Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.COM 73(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2012 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Hon'ble Mr. State of M. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. therefore. C. 348 of 2012) Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Appellant(s) Vs. 1989 — the effect and impact of not committing an accused in terms of Section 193 of the Code in cases where charge-sheet is filed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.S.COM 87(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice J. Justice T. of Police Respondent(s). the presence of the appellant in custody may not be necessary for further investigation — the appellant is ordered to be released on BAIL on fulfilling conditions — appeal disposed. Justice Dipak Misra. Justice Dalveer Bhandari. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Insp. 223 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 471 r/w section 120B — charge-sheet filed for commission of the offences punishable under — whether the appellant made out a case for regular BAIL or whether the High Court is justified in dismissing his BAIL application — to consider — the appellant along with the others charged with economic offences of huge magnitude — the appellant was granted temporary BAIL on three occasions on medical ground — the assurance of the ASG for completion of the case within three months was not fulfilled due to various reasons — the Supreme Court held that though the charge sheet and additional charge sheet were submitted to the Court. decided on 2/10/2012. 420. S. setting aside of conviction as a natural corollary or direction for retrial as the third step of the syllogism solely on the said foundation would be an anathema to justice — reference answered. likelihood of his absconsion is a remote possibility — the Appellant is directed to be released on BAIL to the satisfaction of the trial Court — appeal allowed.I. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. 149. 01/2011 pending before the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ghaziabad. (Crl. 448. decided on 2/3/2012. & others Respondent(s)..the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session — the Supreme Court opined that because of the restricted role assigned to the Magistrate at the stage of commitment under the new Code. During all these years there is no allegation that the Appellant has interfered with the investigation. decided on 2/3/2012. 45 of 2012 with T. to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi/New Delhi — on the grounds of convenience. Justice B.) No.COM 95(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). the noncompliance of the same and raising of any objection in that regard after conviction attracts the applicability of the principle of `failure of justice' and the convict-appellant becomes obliged in law to satisfy the appellate court that he has been prejudiced and deprived of a fair trial or there has been miscarriage of justice. 201 and 120-B — remanding of the appellant to jail custody for the offences under — CrPC.COM 119(Case/Appeal No: Transfer Petition (Crl. State of West Bengal Respondent(s). Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 — section 439 — BAIL application filed under — there is no mention of the Appellant's name or alleged role in the incident — the Appellant was arrested in connection with a FIR lodged 9 years after the incident. Furthermore.P. 326.) No. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mrs. 2012 SCCL. as the Ghaziabad Court was . 1973 — section 406 — transfer petitions filed under — for the transfer of Special Case No. personal security and that the petitioners were not likely to get justice. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 307. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. in connection with this case he was also granted anticipatory BAIL and nothing to indicate that such privilege was either abused or misused by the Appellant — the Supreme Court held that tampering with the evidence or the investigation is no longer relevant since charge-sheet has already been filed in the case and the appellant being a sitting MLA.P. 2012 SCCL.B. 501. 310 of 2012) Susanta Ghosh Appellant(s) Vs. 46 of 2012) Rajesh Talwar Petitioner(s) Vs. 148. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar. 1860 — sections 147. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. C. 302. Unless the same is established. U. & another Respondent(s). 1860 — section 302 — punishment of murder — conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of the offence under — whether the High Court was justified in over turning the judgment of acquittal in favour of the appellant passed by the Trial court on merits of the case — to consider — the trial Court noticed a number of weaknesses in the case of the prosecution. 525526 of 2012) Jai Prakash Singh Appellant(s) Vs. Justice Swatanter Kumar. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. thus.COM 158(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). it was not a fit case to enlarge the accused on anticipatory BAIL — the High Court very lightly brushed aside the fact that FIR had been lodged . is not reliable and worthy of credence — conviction order set aside — appeal allowed — acquittal.proceeding with the matter with a pre-determined mind — the Supreme Court found that the basis on which the petitioners are seeking transfer of proceedings are speculative and unjustified apprehensions based interalia on vague and non-specific allegations — transfer petitions dismissed. 1973 — section 438 — anticipatory BAIL to the respondents under — appeals against — IPC. decided on 3/14/2012.S. the report of the FSL has been of no help to the prosecution — the judgment of the High Court has not brought out as to how the trial court's judgment was perverse in law or was based on conjectures and surmises in contradistinction to facts proved by evidence on record — the case of the prosecution suffered from proven improbabilities. 984 of 2007) Govindaraju@Govinda Appellant(s) Vs. Justice B.K. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. contradictions and the statement of the sole witness. State of Bihar & another etc. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice A. 2012 SCCL.COM 143(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). State by Sriramapuram P. was examined thus. Even the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution — no person from the FSL. including the evidence of PW1 particularly when there was no evidence to corroborate even his statement — all the recovery witnesses turned hostile and bluntly denied their presence during the recovery of knives. PW1. the Police Officer. decided on 3/15/2012. infirmities. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar. 1860 — sections 302/34 — FIR registered against the respondents for commission of the offences under — the FIR had been lodged promptly within a period of two hours from the time of incident — the deceased received multiple abrasions and 5 gun shot injuries.S. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Respondent(s). Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr. 2012 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 1860 — Sections 420. 471. the integrity certificate for the year 2010 was directed to be withheld — whether the disciplinary authority can impose punishment .P. Justice P. 592 of 2012) Shobhan Singh Khanka Appellant(s) Vs. 469. 467. 424. the appellant has made out a case for anticipatory BAIL — order of the High Court set aside — appellant released on BAIL — appeal allowed. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: U.P. acted as Expert No. 1991 — withholding integrity — the disciplinary authority. Chairman and other Members of the JPSC on the allegations that they provided highest marks to the candidates whom they desire to be selected or appointed by giving undue favour and that the appellant is responsible for cutting. decided on 4/13/2012. 1988 — section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(c) (d) — FIR lodged against the appellant. interpolation in the marks sheet of the Interview Board in order to provide benefit to the candidates for selection and appointment — the High Court dismissed his petition for anticipatory BAIL — hence. decided on 3/30/2012. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar. itself suffers from non-application of mind — impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and the anticipatory BAIL granted to the respondents is cancelled — appeals disposed. Chelameswar. 2012 SCCL. 109 and 201 — Prevention of Corruption Act. State of Jharkhand Respondent(s). Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. S. therefore. without disclosing as under what circumstances not recording the past criminal history of the accused involved in the case had prejudiced the cause of the prosecution in a BAILable offence. State of U. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules.COM 180(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s).1 only for a short period. found that the charge framed against the appellant stood proved. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 468. 2012 SCCL. the appeal — the Supreme Court held that considering the limited allegation in the FIR and other details. & others Respondent(s).3550 of 2012) Vijay Singh Appellant(s) Vs.COM 159(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).P. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. 120-B. appellant's academic qualifications including the fact that he does not belong to the State of Jharkhand and has no relatives and is not a Member of the JPSC.spontaneously and further did not record any reason as how the prerequisite conditions incorporated in the statutory provision itself stood fulfilled — the order dehors the grounds provided in Section 438 Cr.C. manipulation. 1973 — section 438 — petition filed under — for anticipatory BAIL — IPC. Justice J. 477A. 423. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice B. 467. Subject Index: Validity of document — in complaint case at the stage of grant of BAIL Indian Penal Code. despite the value attached to the concept of liberty. 1860 — sections 192. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. 193. decided on 5/4/2012.COM 216(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation. decided on 9/23/2011. set aside — appeals disposed. not being provided under the Rules 1991. 2012 SCCL. thus.S. could afford to vaporise the statutory mandate enshrined under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — to consider— the legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. 420. An interim order restraining arrest. 196. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. which cannot. 200. Justice Dipak Misra. Thus. Justice K.750 and 751/of 2012) Rashmi Rekha Thatoi & another Appellant(s) Vs. Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. 1973 — section 438 — direction for grant of BAIL to person apprehending arrest — whether the High Court.not prescribed under statutory rules after holding disciplinary proceedings — no — the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority withholding the integrity certificate as a punishment for delinquency is without jurisdiction. at any rate. State of Bihar & another Respondents.1903 of 2011) Dinbandhu Appellant Vs. creates a dent in the sacrosanctity of law. State of Orissa & others Respondent(s). be done sunder Section 438 of the Code — the court cannot issue a blanket order restraining arrest and can only issue an interim order conforming to the requirement of the section and suitable conditions — held that when the High Court expressed the view that it is not inclined to grant anticipatory BAIL to the accused petitioners it could not have issued such a direction which would tantamount to conferment of benefit by which the accused would be in a position to avoid arrest — the direction to admit the accused persons to BAIL on their surrendering has no sanction in law and. 406. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. since the same could not be termed as punishment under the Rules. 468 and 471 — complaint filed against the appellant under — the order of the High Court granting anticipatory . Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. the order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the appellant — the impugned order withholding integrity certificate for the year 2010 and all subsequent orders quashed — appeal allowed.COM 212(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 2012 SCCL. Hence. and issuing process under Section 204 Cr. under Section 3(2) — in challenge — the District Magistrate. 85 of 2012 In Criminal Appeal No. Central Bureau of Investigation & another Respondents.S.BAIL to the appellant subject to condition that in a partition suit that was pending between the parties. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr.C. Subject Index: A) Criminal Procedure Code. P. 2012 SCCL.840 of 2012) Huidrom Konungjao Singh Appellant Vs. 204 — the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr. correctness and validity of a document used as evidence in a suit is the Civil Court. 1980 — section 3(2) — detention order passed under — IPC. State of Manipur & others Respondents. neither the accused nor the informant would use a certain document (a family arrangement-cum-partition deed) as evidence — in challenge — the final judge of the genuineness. against the petitioner . it was not open to the High Court to impose the condition that amounts to pre-judging the issue — the Supreme Court held that the condition imposed by the High Court for grant of anticipatory BAIL to the appellant is untenable and the complainant not bound by that condition — criminal appeal allowed. K. Imphal West passed the detention order on various grounds with an apprehension that as in similar cases. 1973 — sections 190.68 of 2012) Nupur Talwar Petitioner Vs. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr.COM 265(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (Crl.C. thus. Justice A.P.COM 252(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1860 — section 302 — Arms Act. the accused involved therein had been enlarged on BAIL the detenu in this case would also be released on BAIL and he would indulge in activities prejudicial to public order — the Supreme Court held that the impugned order of detention is based on mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law — detention order quashed — appeal allowed. Justice Dipak Misra. 1959 — section 25(1-C) — arrest of the appellant's son for commission of the offences under — the order passed by the High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus petition challenging the order of detention of appellant’s son passed by the District Magistrate. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. decided on 6/7/2012. 2012 SCCL.) No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice B. it is for the court dealing with the partition suit between the parties to examine and test the genuineness of the “Shartnama” produced by the appellant in support of his case — genuineness and validity of the document can hardly be tested in the complaint case and certainly not at the stage of grant of BAIL to the accused. Subject Index: National Security Act. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar. decided on 5/17/2012. has made out a case for anticipatory BAIL under — to consider — the deceased allegedly committed suicide after one year and eight months of marriage — the statements of various persons including parents of the deceased and neighbours clearly show that all the family members of the husband of the deceased including the appellant subjected the deceased to cruelty by demanding sizeable amount in order to settle the payment of Rs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.-.6432 of 2012) . State (NCT of Delhi) Respondent(s) . J. Khehar.COM 419(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.(J. it was decided to issue process. 1973 — section 438 — whether the appellant. the documents and other materials collected during the process of investigation. J.and her husband for the offence of murder of their daughter and their domestic servant — in challenge — once the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner and her husband was sustained. 1973 — sections 190. Further.S.) No(s). decided on 8/31/2012. Justice Ranjan Gogoi.(A. Patnaik. the Magistrate while issuing process had passed a detailed reasoned order. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. who is elder brother of the husband of the deceased.5 lakhs of the allotted DDA flat. the materials on record established that the appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as “absconder” — the Supreme Court held that the conduct of the appellant does not entitle him to anticipatory BAIL as prescribed in Section 438 of the Code — appeal dismissed. cannot be stated to have occasioned failure of justice — the Supreme Court held that it is not essential for the concerned Magistrate to record reasons or to pass a speaking order demonstrating the basis of the satisfaction. 204 — order taking cognizance and/or issuing process against the petitioner and her husband — in challenge — the Magistrate having examined the statements recorded during the course of investigation under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice P. The order brings out the basis of the Magistrate’s satisfaction — review petition dismissed. having taken cognizance. 1331 of 2012) Lavesh Appellant(s) Vs. was fully justified in recording the basis on which. 2012 SCCL. The Magistrate’s order being speaking. Despite the same. as also. leading to issuance of process.) 2012 SCCL.COM 393(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. -.Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr.K. there is no scope for granting the relief of further investigation for the purpose of finding out whether someone other than the petitioner and her husband had committed the offences in respect of the deceased persons — review petition dismissed.) B) Criminal Procedure Code. the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence — the Supreme Court viewed that the SC/STs Act is applicable to the case. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. State of Maharashtra & others Respondent(s) . decided on 9/10/2012. State of Punjab & Another . Justice P. decided on 9/7/2012. State of Maharashtra & another Respondent(s) . custodial interrogation is required — the order of rejection of the claim for anticipatory BAIL. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. 471 r/w section 34 — complaint filed against the appellant for the offences under — the appellant made a forgery pertaining to the granting of lease for 87 years without the consent of the Complainant and also made a forgery by making additions/alterations in the original draft agreement for lease which was prepared at the time of executing the MoU. Justice Ranjan Gogoi. the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory BAIL under Section 438 of the Code — SLP dismissed. Justice P. 2012 SCCL. 21072125 of 2011) Gian Singh Petitioner Vs. 7148 and 6324 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 468. 1973 — section 438 — the order of the High Court dismissing the application for anticipatory BAIL filed by the appellant — in challenge — IPC. Subject Index: Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. 6138 of 2006. Even in the notarized document.COM 454(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl. 1973 — section 438 — whether an accused charged with various offences under the ‘IPC’ along with the provisions of the SC/ST Act is entitled for anticipatory BAIL under Section 438 of the CrPC — to consider — the scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory BAIL.1376 of 2012) Maruti Nivrutti Navale Appellant(s) Vs.) No(s). 5203 and 259 of 2011.1860 — sections 420. Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.) Nos. thus. 5921. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.COM 422(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 465. 1989 — section 18 — CrPC. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting BAIL under Section 438 of the Code. affirmed — appeal dismissed. forgery was committed by the appellant — the Supreme Court viewed that in order to bring out all the material information and documents which were alleged to have been forged and fabricated. 2012 SCCL.8989 of 2010 with SLP (Crl.Vilas Pandurang Pawar & another Petitioner(s) Vs. Respondents . 1973 — sections 320 and 482 — the question is with regard to the inherent power of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code — the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Justice R. irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable.. particularly relating to dowry. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power.. justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated — reference answered. Hon'ble Mr. confined and abused because the victim showed some courage to speak against the accused — the Supreme Court opined that the social concern deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused — order passed by the High Court set aside — annulment of the order of grant of BAIL — appeal allowed. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & another . there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings. the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. Respondents . Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Lodha.. etc.. decided on 9/20/2012. the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 2012 SCCL. where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably. However.1456 of 2012) Ash Mohammad . 1860 — sections 365/506 — the order of the High Court granting BAIL to the accused-respondent in respect of offence under — in challenge — the accused was a historysheeter and was involved in 52 cases. Justice Anil R. Justice Dipak Misra.M. Justice K. Before exercise of such inherent power. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes. Appellant Vs. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya. like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity.S. .R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement. or the family dispute. decided on 9/24/2012. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr.COM 457(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).I. He was the pivotal force in getting the kidnapping done of the victim — the victim had been kidnapped under threat. certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour or the offences arising out of matrimony. No.6 and 11 disentitled to the benefit of BAIL — appeals disposed. the main accused nos. 18203-18204 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal Nos.COM 477(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).2. M. Subject Index: Cancellation of BAIL and transfer of case — the case of the CBI for cancelling the BAIL granted to Amitbhai Shah (A-16/R-1) in Sohrabuddin case and transferring that case for trial outside Gujarat — for consideration — the Supreme Court held that the grant of BAIL to Amitbhai Shah in Sohrabuddin case shall be no consideration for grant of BAIL to the other accused in that case and in case Amitbhai Shah commits any breach of the conditions of the BAIL bond or the undertaking given to the court.1. decided on 10/5/2012. was attacked.2. the Supreme Court found that in order to preserve the integrity of the trial it is necessary to shift it outside the State. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr.7 and 14. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr.5. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. it will be open to the CBI to move the trial court for cancellation of his BAIL — the material facts and circumstances as also having regard to the past experience in the Sohrabuddin matter.P. Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah and Another Respondents . decided on 9/27/2012. Justice B. 148.2012 SCCL. State of A. the Sohrabuddin case stood transferred to the Court of CBI.1597-1598 of 2012 With Crl.P. the video clipping is shown to the doctored — the order of the High Court extending the benefit of BAIL to accused nos. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs.1 to 6 and 11 are the main accused and the video clipping recorded by the listed witness no. without any fear of the repercussions which resulted in serious injuries to him — the accused nos. 19175 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. prima facie. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar. Nos. 307 r/w sections 149 and 120 — Indian Arms Act — section 27(1) — FIR registered against 15 accused persons — the order of the High Court granting BAIL to accused — in challenge — the allegation as appeared in the chargesheet showed that in broad day light an elected representative of the people. 19162 of 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. M. No.3. Therefore.4. 44 of 2011) Central Bureau of Investigation Appellant Vs.22 noticed the presence and participation of accused nos.1599 of 2012 With Crl. as directed above. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1860 — sections 147.15951596 of 2012 With Crl. Respondent. 2012 SCCL. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.5.P. therefore. .M. unless of course.COM 487(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). the participation of these accused in the occurrence cannot be seriously doubted.P.1503 of 2012 with Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. Bombay — appeal dismissed but the transfer petition allowed.1600 of 2012) Younus Bin Omer Yafai @ Younus Bhai & others Appellants Vs.S.7 and 14 set aside. Also.3. during the course of evidence. 324. The Detaining Authority was conscious of all relevant aspects and passed the impugned order of detention — the Supreme Court held that looking to the various grounds/details/materials adverted to in the impugned order it cannot be claimed that there was no compelling necessity to pass the order of detention. . Lodha. Justice K. 1451 of 2003 R. however. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. 8855 of 2011 Criminal Appeal No. 1860 — sections 302.2012 SCCL. it should be inapposite to enlarge the appellant on BAIL. It is the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority whether the order of detention is to be invoked or not — appeal dismissed. Justice Dipak Misra.) No. 8768 of 2011 SLP(Crl. Justice Ranjan Gogoi. held that in case the order for reinvestigation is annulled. Union of India & others Respondent(s) . 390 of 2010 in SLP(Crl. 201 and 120-B — Arms Act. Justice R. 2012 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. it would be open for the appellant to file a fresh application for BAIL before the competent Court — appeal disposed.S. State of West Bengal Respondent . decided on 10/12/2012. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. (Criminal) No. 1959 — sections 25(1)(b) and 27 — order of rejection of prayer for BAIL for offences punishable under — in challenge — the High Court directed the C. Justice P.COM 506(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).866 of 2008) Baby Devassy Chully @ Bobby Appellant(s) Vs. Hon'ble Mr. to conduct a comprehensive investigation — the Supreme Court opined that as there is a direction for fresh investigation. 616 of 2012 ) Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Appellant Vs. Subject Index: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act.COM 505(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.I.M.P.COM 504(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). State of Gujarat and another Respondents .) No. decided on 10/12/2012. 1397 of 2003 SLP (Crl. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. 2012 SCCL.B. 2542 of 2010 SLP(Crl. 654 of 2002 SLP (Crl. 1974 — section 3(1) — detention order passed under — against the appellant with a view to prevent him from abetting the smuggling of goods in future — seizure of diesel oil weighing about 770 MTs of foreign origin without any legal documents for import — the grounds of detention clearly mention the details about the BAIL order and non-availing of the same by the appellant on the date of detention order.1193 of 2006 with Criminal Appeal No.) No.) No. decided on 10/10/2012.) No.1649 of 2012) Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Appellant Vs. school leaving certificate. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim.Justice T. decided on 10/16/2012. 2007 — section 7A. Justice T. Sahabuddin & another Appellants Vs. marksheet and the medical report were treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the appellant’s age. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla . Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. decided on 10/5/2012. 2012 SCCL..S. Dave. State of Assam Respondent . Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. it cannot be simply presumed that such transportation was for therapeutic practice — the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any valid explanation for effecting the transporation of a huge quantity of the cough syrup which contained the narcotic substance of codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed limit. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. 2012 SCCL. 2 and five others under — for their involvement in the murder of appellant's brother — the order of the High Court releasing the accused on BAIL — . Rule 12 — claim of juvenility — when should a claim of juvenility be recognised and sent for determination when it is raised for the first time in appeal or before this Court or raised in trial and appeal but not pressed and then pressed for the first time before this Court or even raised for the first time after final disposal of the case — in question — a claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage for the first time before this Court as well after final disposal of the case. Subject Index: NDPS Act. 1860 — sections 147. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr.S. 149. the application for grant of BAIL cannot be considered — appeal dismissed. Subject Index: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.1662 of 2012) Kanwar Singh Meena Appellant Vs. 364 and 302 — complaint registered against respondent No. 2000 and Rules. State of Rajasthan & another Respondents .COM 521(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility — the documents viz.1602 of 2012) Md. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. however. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. The plea of juvenility should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of probability — reference answered. 148.COM 508(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1985 — section 36A (4) — whether appellants entitled for BAIL under — in question — seizure of pharmaceutical products — the appellants had no documents in their possession to disclose as to for what purpose such a huge quantity of Schedule ‘H’ drug containing narcotic substance was being transported and thus. 506 — Dowry Prohibition Act — sections 3 and 4 — case registered against 1st respondent and his family members under — the High Court directed stay of arrest till the conclusion of the investigation or submission of any report under Section 173 CrPC and later it was ordered that the 1st respondent should not be arrested until the conclusion of the trial — the High Court entertained a petition in a disposal of criminal writ petition and granted reliefs. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr.S. with retrospective effect set aside and the Appellant is directed to be released on BAIL — appeal allowed. 2012 SCCL. decided on 10/19/2012. which is impermissible in law — the Supreme Court held that .16951697 of 2012) Sayed Mohd. 504. Javed @ Anjum Respondent . Ahmed Kazmi Appellant Vs. ignoring the relevant material. State. 324. Subject Index: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.COM 537(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). Justice Dipak Misra. GNCTD & others Respondents . 323. Justice J. 1967 — extending of remand of the accused — in challenge — the Appellant exercised his right to statutory BAIL on the very same day on which his custody was held to be illegal and such an application was left undecided by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate till after the application filed by the prosecution for extension of time to complete investigation was taken up and orders were passed thereupon — the Supreme Court viewed that the Appellant acquired the right for grant of statutory BAIL when his custody was held to be illegal by the Additional Sessions Judge since his application for statutory BAIL was pending at the time when the application for extension of time for continuing the investigation was filed by the prosecution — the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extending the time of investigation and custody of the accused for 90 days. 2012 SCCL.1693 of 2012) Nazma Appellant Vs. Hon'ble Mr. Chelameswar. 1860 — sections 498-A. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. is legally not tenable — impugned order quashed and the police are directed to take accused in custody for trial — appeal disposed. Subject Index: Stay of arrest — impugned order in challenge — IPC. decided on 10/19/2012.in challenge — the statements of Kuldip Prajapati and Rita appear to be relevant as they prima facie indicate involvement of the accused in the crime in question — the High Court expressed no opinion as to why it was releasing the accused on BAIL — the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused involved in a heinous crime on BAIL. Justice K. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.COM 528(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. 4 and 21(4) — whether the High Court was justified in granting BAIL to the respondent. 1999 — sections 2(1)(a). 173(8) — the mere undertaking of a further investigation either by the Investigating Officer on his own or upon the directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to a direction by the concerned Magistrate to whom the report is forwarded does not mean that the report submitted under Section 173(2) is abandoned or rejected. State of Gujarat & another Respondents . in the light of restriction imposed under Section 21(4) of MCOCA — to consider — the respondent was charged under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(i). Chelameswar. in its inherent jurisdiction. the benefit of default BAIL was not available to the Petitioner — the Supreme Court held that registering a "fresh FIR" by CBI. Notwithstanding the practice of the CBI to register a “fresh FIR”.R. Hon'ble Mr.COM 564(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). particularly.grant of BAIL or not to grant. is within the powers of the regular Criminal Court and the High Court. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. not justified in usurping their powers.1689 of 2012) The State of Maharashtra Appellant(s) Vs. decided on 11/6/2012. the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain review petitions or miscellaneous applications except for carrying out typographical or clerical errors — impugned order passed by the High Court set aside — appeal allowed. 1973 — sections 173(2). 2012 SCCL. Justice Ranjan Gogoi. 1973 — section 167(2) — rejection of petitioner's application for default BAIL under — chargesheet filed against the accused persons. Subject Index: ORDER: CrPC.) No. Once the criminal writ petition has been disposed of. including the Petitioner in the case that was alleged to be a fake encounter — the petitioner was under arrest in connection with the first F.COM 558(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition ( Crl. the investigation undertaken by the CBI is in the nature of further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the CrPC pursuant to the direction of this Court. 11364 of 2012) Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal Petitioner Vs. Criminal Procedure Code. decided on 10/19/2012. Subject Index: Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. 12 police officers. Justice J. 3672 of 2012 with Criminal M. in which charge-sheet had been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days. No. does not lead to conclusion in law that the earlier report or the material collected by the Gujarat Police (CID) on the basis of which they filed the charge-sheet ceased to exist — petition dismissed. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty Respondent(s) . 2012 SCCL. 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA — the materials on . Justice P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice.P.I. robbery with common intention — conviction and sentence of the appellant under — in challenge — the prosecution examined PWs. 1860 — sections 306. set aside — appeal allowed. 420 r/w section 34 — complaint registered against the appellants for commission of the offences under — the order of the ld. 18591860 of 2012) Padmakar Tukaram Bhavnagare & another Appellant(s) Vs.17. After robbing of the complainant’s cash and jewels and other materials when the appellant attempted to molest the complainant the deceased raised a protest at which point of . Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. State of Maharashtra & another Respondent(s) . 1735 of 2009) Akil @ Javed Appellant Vs. 20. the act of the respondent comes within the definition of 'abet' under section 2(1)(a) of MCOCA — the respondent received illgotten money for the wanted accused-Vijay Shetty and. 2012 SCCL. 19.COM 626(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla. ingredients of Section 4 of MCOCA attracted against him — the impugned order of the High Court granting BAIL ignoring the mandatory requirements of Section 21(4) of MCOCA.record indicated that the respondent was having an associations with the overseas base wanted accused Nos. 23 and 25 as eye-witnesses to the crime and the narration of the event as described by those witnesses was not in controversy.1 and 2 and handled the funds of the syndicate. thus. 5. Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. 6 and 7 are concerned as there is no reference to them in the FIR — the accused who are aged and rustic are not influential persons holding high office who can bring pressure on the investigating agency because they are protected by an order granting anticipatory BAIL to them — no material produced to show that the accused interfered with the course of investigation by threatening the complainant and the members of his family — impugned orders set aside — anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants-accused 6 and 7 confirmed — appeals disposed. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Single Judge cancelling the anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants — in challenge — the contents of the suicide notes prima facie appear to be unnatural so far as accused No. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 392 r/w section 34 — punishment of murder. 2012 SCCL.COM 594(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. therefore. 1860 — sections 302. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. State of NCT of Delhi Respondent . decided on 12/6/2012. decided on 11/26/2012. upheld — appeal dismissed. 1973 — sections 154. Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. where the incident is separate. 19. State of U. 23 and 25 was clinching enough to rope in the appellant along with the co-accused in the commission of the crime as alleged and found proved against both of them — conviction order upheld — appeal dismissed. can a Magistrate authorize the investigating agency to record the voice sample of the person accused .156 (3) — whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence — to consider — there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. Justice Madan B. However. there could be a common FIR or subsequent FIR could not be permitted to be registered or there could be common trial — the judgment of the High Court directing the Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the application of respondent No. the presence of the appellant along with the co-accused at the place of occurrence in the manner described by the witnesses. the law does not contemplate grant of any hearing to a suspect — the Supreme Court held that where two incidents are of different times with involvement of different persons.P.2. 2012 SCCL. there is no commonality and the purpose thereof different and they emerge from different circumstances.COM 668(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. decided on 12/13/2012. it will not be possible for the Court to take a view that they form part of the same transaction and therefore. decided on 12/7/2012. namely. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2003 of 2012) Ritesh Sinha Appellant Vs. State of U. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Subject Index: ORDER: Voiceprint identification — whether in the absence of any provision in the Code.P.time the appellant shot him which snatched away the life of the deceased — PW-20 identified the appellant as one of the accused of the crime — recovery of articles from the possession of the appellant and the co-accused. Lokur.2039 of 2012) Anju Chaudhary Appellant Vs. PWs. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. 20. or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first. 2012 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.COM 645(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. then a second FIR could be registered — absence of specific provision requiring grant of hearing to a suspect clearly supports the view that at the stage of registration of a FIR or passing a direction under Section 156(3). offences are similar or different.17. & another Respondents. & another Respondents. 8286. Thus.) B) Prisoners Act. when the prosecution has not even commenced to examine the main witnesses. (Desai. J. State (Union Territory) Andaman & Nicobar Islands Respondent.S. taking voice sample of an accused by the police during investigation is not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution — the voiceprint identification of voice involves measurement of frequency and intensity of sound waves. J.of an offence — case listed for hearing before a bench of three Judges after obtaining the necessary direction from the Honourable the Chief Justice of India.7532. 1908 — the Supreme Court held that releasing the petitioners from jail.COM 10(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. Saharanpur summoning the appellant to the court for recording the sample of his voice — in appeal — whether Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. therefore. decided on 1/3/2013. should the court invent one by the process of interpretation — held no. 1920 — section 5 — CrPC.) 2013 SCCL. 1973 — section 53 — Identification of Prisoners Act. which protects a person accused of an offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself. A) Criminal Procedure Code. falls within the ambit of inclusive definition of the term ‘measurement’ appearing in the Prisoners Act — the Supreme Court based on the interpretation of relevant sections of the Prisoners Act and Section 53 of the Code held that The Magistrate has an ancillary or implied power under Section 53 of the Code to pass an order permitting taking of voice sample to aid investigation — appeal dismissed. or in any other law under which a Magistrate can authorize the investigating agency to record voice sample of a person accused of an offence — no — the accused by giving the voice sample merely gives ‘identification data’ to the investigating agency and is not subjected to any testimonial compulsion. Subject Index: Explosive Substances Act. 8730 and 8876 of 2012) N. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. 1908 — arrest of the petitioners on the ground of their involvement with the consignment of unauthorized explosive substances — BAIL Petition filed . 1920 — compulsion to give voice sample — whether. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar. in case there is no express or evidently applicable provision in law in that regard. Kannapan and others Petitioners Vs.there is prima facie material. extends to protecting such an accused from being compelled to give his voice sample during the course of investigation into an offence — whether there is any provision in the Code. to establish the involvement of the petitioners in activities violating the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act. (Aftab Alam. 1973 — section 53 — impugned order passed by the High Court confirming the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. . Justice B. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. could prove detrimental to the eventual outcome of the trial — the prayer for BAIL made by the petitioners declined. but. Gokhale. Justice A. the respondent (A-2) . 2009 — the materials placed by the prosecution prima face establish that the appellant was not a mere supplier of spurious alcohol but he was involved in the criminal conspiracy of manufacturing spurious liquor along with the main coaccused Vinod @ Dagri (A-1) and selling the same at various places through his men — the Supreme Court held that in view of the gravity of the offence. he was only discharging his duties for the litigants who had sought his assistance — no materials produced on record to show that all relevant papers of the police investigation were submitted to the High Court on the administrative side. K. 1389 of 2013) Smt. decided on 2/18/2013. injury to several others and the impact on the society as a whole. of Andhra Pradesh Tr. Civil Judges on the ground of her husband having close links with CPI (Maoist) Party which is a prohibited organization — there is no material on record to show that CMS is a banned organization or that the appellant is its member. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Home and another Respondents. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr. 201. Justice P. in July. decided on 2/22/2013. 307. 109. 1949 — sections 65(a)(b)(c)(d)(e). 335 & 336 of 2013) Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar Appellant(s) Vs. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. as A-2 supplied those poisonous chemicals despite having full knowledge about its consequences. 67-1A. State of Gujarat Respondent(s). after due consideration thereof — impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and the State Government is directed to place the police report for the consideration of the High Court on the administrative side with respect to the appointment of appellant — appeal disposed.2013 SCCL. A. Vijaya Lakshmi Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. 66(1)(b). 334 of 2013 with Crl.K. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.COM 120(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 328. 272. Gujarat. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. death of a number of persons. to enable it to take appropriate decision. 72. Nos. 273. as an advocate.COM 121(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 114 and 120-B — Bombay Prohibition Act. Sec. Govt. Further. 81 and 83 — denial of BAIL to the appellant in case registered for the offences punishable under — in challenge — the case relates to the hooch tragedy which resulted into the death of 147 persons and serious physical injuries to 205 others after consuming spurious country-made liquor consisting poisonous chemical Methyl Alcohol in different parts of the Ahmedabad city. 2013 SCCL. Her husband maybe appeared as an advocate for some persons associated with the CPI (Maoist) Party in their BAIL applications. 1860 — sections 302.L. the appellant is not at all entitled to BAIL at the stage. Subject Index: Denial of appointment — of the appellant — to the post of a Civil Judge in Andhra Pradesh — on the basis of a police report — impugned order in challenge — non-inclusion of appellant's name in the list of Jr. 75. . Hon'ble Mr. (2011) 5 SCC 79 — in challenge — the details mentioned in the chargesheet clearly show that what the CBI conducted is mere ‘further investigation’ and the alleged killing of Tulsiram Prajapati was in continuance of and an inseparable part of the conspiracy which commenced by abduction of . it cannot be said that the accused is entitled to grant of statutory BAIL. Justice P. decided on 2/13/2013. Justice Vikramajit Sen.C. decided on 4/8/2013.. 147 of 2013) Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain Petitioner Vs. 5 of 2013 ) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Petitioner(s) Vs. is concerned. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Dr.P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr Altamas Kabir. 149 of 2012 with W. 2013 SCCL.C. no cognizance has been taken on the basis thereof — to consider — evidence on record showed that both the charge-sheet as also the supplementary charge-sheet were filed within 90 days from the date of the Petitioner's arrest and remand to police custody — the Supreme Court held that the filing of charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) and whether cognizance is taken or not is not material as far as Section 167 Cr. Justice B. State of Gujarat & Ors. — in issue — the right of an accused to be released on BAIL under Section 167(2) on the ground that despite charge-sheet having been filed.COM 222(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1973 — section 167 (2) — the power of the Magistrate to pass orders of remand even beyond the period envisaged under Section 167(2) Cr. Justice J. Chauhan. 2013 SCCL.P. The Central Bureau of Investigation & another Respondent(s). 1950 — Article 32 — petition filed under — for quashing of second FIR — filing of fresh FIR by the CBI and chargesheet arraying petitioner as an accused in view of the directions given by this Court to the Police Authorities of the Gujarat State to handover the case relating to the death of Tulsiram Prajapati a material witness to the killings of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi to the CBI in Narmada Bai vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. State of Maharashtra & another Respondents . — sanction is an enabling provision to prosecute.does not deserve liberty of remaining on BAIL — appeals disposed.C. Subject Index: Constitution of India.P.P. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. (Crl. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.P. as envisaged in Section 167 Cr.S.C. which is totally separate from the concept of investigation which is concluded by the filing of the chargesheet — Special Leave Petition dismissed.COM 186(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No(s).) No. Merely because sanction had not been obtained to prosecute the accused and to proceed to the stage of Section 309 Cr. Kausarbi and Tulsiram Prajapati and which culminated into the final stage of alleged killing of Tulsiram Prajapati. A-2 is an active member of the criminal conspiracy and though it is claimed that respondent (A.04. Apart from the consistent stand of the CBI. in the first FIR — the Supreme Court viewed that filing of the second FIR and fresh charge sheet is violative of fundamental rights under Article 14.S. decided on 5/9/2013. had rendered his professional advise. and nothing more — the orders of the Special Judge and the High Court granting BAIL to A-2 set aside — appeal allowed.COM 315(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 1988 against Y. Eqbal . 420 and 477-A of the ‘IPC’ and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Justice P.Sohrabuddin. in law and on facts. Jagan Mohan Reddy (A-1) — the CBI initiated investigation and filed several charge-sheets and three more charge-sheets are yet to be filed.Y.2) being only a C. the chargesheet itself is conclusive to show that the said chargesheet. 115 of 2009. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. 730 of 2013) Y. his nexus with the main accused A-1.S. 1860 — section 120B r/w sections . decided on 5/9/2013.A.A.Y. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. is quashed — writ petition allowed. 1973 — section 437 — grant of regular BAIL under — the order of the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking cancellation of BAIL granted to the respondent — in challenge — a case registered under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409. 729 of 2013) Central Bureau of Investigation Appellant(s) Vs. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Eqbal. deserves to be treated as ‘supplementary chargesheet. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr.S. 2013 SCCL. Member of Parliament and 73 others in which respondent was arrayed as A-2 who was the founder Director of M/s Jagathi Publications and was the Financial Advisor for the group of companies of Y. Central Bureau of Investigation Respondent(s). Justice M. V. 2013 SCCL. Jagan Mohan Reddy Appellant(s) Vs. 20 and 21 of the Constitution since the same relate to alleged offence in respect of which an FIR had already been filed and the court has taken cognizance — the second FIR filed by the CBI in contrary to various judicial pronouncements in judgment dated 08. Vijay Sai Reddy Respondent(s).COM 348(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. in the light of the various serious allegations against him. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Jaganmohan Reddy (A1). contacts with many investors all over India prima facie it cannot be claimed that he acted only as a C. Justice M.2011 by this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. viz. 4537- . 477-A — Prevention of Corruption Act. decided on 5/9/2013.420. however. 1988 — section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(c) and (d) — case registered for the offences under — while granting BAIL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.COM 349(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial. 728 of 2013) Nimmagadda Prasad Appellant(s) Vs. Penna Cements and Investments through Kolkata companies — the Supreme Court held that the apprehension raised by the CBI cannot be lightly ignored considering the claim that the appellant is the ultimate beneficiary and the prime conspirator in huge monetary transactions. Central Bureau of Investigation Respondent(s). 409. thus. Eqbal.Y. Subject Index: Bail petition — dismissal of — in challenge — IPC. the release of the appellant (A-1) would hamper the investigation as it may influence the witnesses and tamper with the material evidence — no relief of BAIL granted to the appellant — appeal dismissed. Among 7 issues. the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations — the economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country — the Supreme Court opined that the appellant cannot be released at the stage. 477-A — Prevention of Corruption Act. circumstances which are peculiar to the accused. the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail.COM 366(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. the character of the accused. the nature of evidence in support thereof. 1860 — section 120B r/w sections 420. 731-737 of 2013 and Civil Appeal Nos. the CBI is directed to complete the investigation and file charge sheet(s) within a period of four months — appeal dismissed. 4540 of 2013 with Crl. Justice M. the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations. 1988 — section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(c) & (d) — case registered against the appellant (A1). 2013 SCCL. the CBI completed the investigation with respect to M/s Dalmia Cements and consequently filed the charge sheet in the Court of Special Judge for CBI and the investigation is progressing with regard to other 6 issues also and the CBI is in the final stages of investigation with respect to the following. 409. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. 2013 SCCL. A. Nos. M/s India Cements. Member of Parliament and 73 others for adopting several ingenious ways to amass illegal wealth which resulted in great public injury — whether the appellant made out a case for BAIL — to consider — the investigation is continuing in connection with 7 matters. decided on 7/10/2013.1 to the appellant and to become the sole owner of those companies — the complainant has manipulated and misused the process of Court so as to deprive the appellants from their basic right to move free anywhere inside or outside the country. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. a channelising industry under the Ministry of Commerce is absolutely an administrative action and. can only be challenged by way of a writ petition and not by seeking relief invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.22 lakhs deposited by the respondent No.1's husband with Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC). Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 — section 482 — scope of exercise of inherent jurisdiction under — in question — matter related to refund of Rs. 2013 SCCL. Respondent. (Crl. 166 of 2013 in S. Justice Dipak Misra (Vacation Bench) . Section 482 of the Code could not have been exercised as the action taken by the appellant. Hence. 2013 SCCL. 763 of 2003) Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & another Appellants Vs.L. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr.C. decided on 5/29/2013. Subject Index: Joint Venture Agreement — breach of — acts of oppression and mismanagement indulged by respondent No. K. decided on 5/9/2013. allowing the criminal proceedings arising out of alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement specially when such disputes have been finally resolved by the Court of competent jurisdiction to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court — criminal proceedings quashed. 9853 of 2010) Chandran Ratnaswami Appellant Vs.) No. Justice B.P. Justice M. Palanisamy and others Respondents.COM 439(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). Justice P. therefore. Thus.4538 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 387 of 2007) Engineering Export Promotion Council Appellant Vs. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. . Usha Anand and another Respondents .1 — complaint filed for initiating criminal action against the appellants for the breach of contract and conspiracy — dispute arising out of Joint Venture Agreement has been fully and finally settled by the Company Law Board and also the High Court and several directions were issued for compliance including the return of the amount by respondent No. a channelising industry under the Ministry of Commerce to avoid arrest — deposition of any sum as a condition of BAIL and a deposit with the Agency on one’s own even if to avoid arrest would stand on a different footing.S. Eqbal.P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr.COM 381(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. State of U.Y. Justice Madan B. 4540 of 2013 with Crl.COM 551(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. as if it had been satisfied on inquiry. K. (Crl. 1190 of 2013) . Lokur . under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence — therefore Court upon finding the juvenile guilty would not pass an order of sentence against him. decided on 5/9/2013. 2013 SCCL. allowing the criminal proceedings arising out of alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement specially when such disputes have been finally resolved by the Court of competent jurisdiction to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court — criminal proceedings quashed. he was above 16 years of age.1 — complaint filed for initiating criminal action against the appellants for the breach of contract and conspiracy — dispute arising out of Joint Venture Agreement has been fully and finally settled by the Company Law Board and also the High Court and several directions were issued for compliance including the return of the amount by respondent No.Y. 2000. instead he shall be referred to the Board for appropriate orders under the 2000 Act — accordingly. forward the juvenile to the Board which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile.COM 455(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.P. Palanisamy and others Respondents. A. 498-A — Indian Penal Code. which provides that if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an offence. the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Subject Index: Joint Venture Agreement — breach of — acts of oppression and mismanagement indulged by respondent No. Justice P.1 to the appellant and to become the sole owner of those companies — the complainant has manipulated and misused the process of Court so as to deprive the appellants from their basic right to move free anywhere inside or outside the country. 2000 — appellant convicted under section 304-B. it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Nos. Justice M.) No. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. 2013 SCCL. which raised the age of juvenility to 18 years. Subject Index: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act.L. Hence. 1860 — on the date of occurrence. therefore not a juvenile under the 1986 Act — with the repeal of the aforesaid Act by the 2000 Act. Eqbal. in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 45374538 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (C) No.C. the case of appellant fell within sec 20 of the 2000 Act. Justice T. 731-737 of 2013 and Civil Appeal Nos. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. 9853 of 2010) Chandran Ratnaswami Appellant Vs. 166 of 2013 in S.S. T. 2013 SCCL. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai . decided on 9/13/2013. Justice J. while order granting anticipatory BAIL retained — appeal disposed. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Justice H. therefore any condition. 1973 — section 438 — whether the condition of depositing an amount of Rs. National Investigation Agency Petitioner and Sadhwi Pragya Singh Thakur Applicant Vs.000/.G. Md. Subject Index: National Investigation Agency Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mrs. 17570 & 17571 of 2013 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 2013 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.L. M.00. 7375 & 9788 of 2012) State of Andhra Pradesh through I. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.Vikas Appellant(s) Vs. decided on 9/13/2013.COM 490(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Eqbal.in fixed deposit for anticipatory BAIL is sustainable in law and whether such condition is outside the purview of Section 438 of the Code? — to consider — the words “any condition” used in the aforesaid provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a Court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. 1. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. 1973 — section 319 — to consider — non BAILable warrant — issuance of — in challenge — power to issue non-bailable warrant under Section 319 being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution — unless an accused is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law. State of Rajasthan Respondent(s) . Gokhale and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 8/16/2013.Y. cannot be countenanced as permissible under the law — facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed — direction relating to deposit of FDR in the name of the complainant set aside.P.L. of Delhi Respondent . Justice M. Nos. Hussain @ Saleem Respondent and National Investigation Agency Respondent . 1436 of 2013) Sumit Mehta Appellant Vs. 2008 — sections 21 . Justice H. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.C. which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the investigation or trial. Chelameswar . State of N.COM 496(Case/Appeal No: Crl. issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided — court in all circumstances in complaint cases at the first instance should first prefer issuing summons or BAILable warrant failing which a non-bailable warrant should be issued — orders passed by the Trial Court whereby non-bailable warrant was issued against the appellant which was confirmed by the High Court set aside — appeal disposed.00. was the widow of late Madan Tamang who was the President of a political party called Akhil Bhartiya Gorkha League was brutally murdered on the morning of 21st May. 1967. police and security personnel by the supporters of rival party called Gorkha Jan Mukti Morcha and that after the brutal attack on the deceased Madan Tamang he was rushed to a nearby hospital where he .) No.S. Subject Index: Borstal Schools Act — section 2(1) — Juvenile Justice Act. No. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .P. Justice Vikramjit Sen. Justice T.COM 596(Case/Appeal No: Criminal M.(2) and (4) — Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act. 2008 — to consider — an appeal from an order of the Special Court under NIA Act.COM 633(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl. decided on 9/19/2013. and therefore application for BAIL in such matters will have to be made before the Special Court under the NIA Act. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. refusing or granting BAIL shall lie only to a bench of two Judges of the High Court — since the applicant is being prosecuted for the offences under the MCOC Act as well as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. and shall not lie before the High Court — application for BAIL filed by the applicant not maintainable before the High Court — petitions dismissed. and therefore not a juvenile. 853 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 1999 — section 21 (4) — whether section 21 (2) of NIA Act applies to an appeal from an order of the Special Court refusing BAIL — whether BAIL matters pertaining offences under MCOCA shall be governed by Section 21 of the MCOC Act and not by Section 21 of the NIA Act. Union of India & others Respondents. decided on 10/8/2013. but not more than 21 years of age in either case — being an adult it would not have been advisable for him to be detained in a Borstal School as he may detrimentally influence younger persons — petition dismissed. 2010 under the gaze of general public. provisions of Borstal Schools Act — not applicable since the Act applies to a person who at the time of such conviction is not less than 16 in the case of a boy and not less than 18 in the case of a girl. State Tr. 2013 SCCL. 2000 — section 8 — Indian Penal Code. 1860 — section 302 — conviction of the petitioner of the offence under — BAIL petition — on the date of his conviction the Petitioner was over 21 years old. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2013 SCCL. such offences are triable only by Special Court. Sub-Inspector of Police Respondent. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. 159 of 2012) Bharati Tamang Petitioner Vs. 811 of 2011) Nagoor Pichai @ Badusha Petitioner Vs. Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 32 — Petition under — petitioner. Justice T. Justice A. Sikri. The need to punish every transgressor of the law is ubiquitously accepted in all legal persuasions throughout the ages — there is an alarming and sinister increase in instances where convicts have filed appeals apparently with . 53 and 67 — the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench for re-consideration of the issue as to whether the officer investigating the matter under NDPS Act would qualify as police officer or not — whether the statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 67 of the Act can be treated as confessional statement or not. 1680 of 2013) Surya Baksh Singh Appellant Vs. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Appeal — statutory right — the rampant manipulation and misuse of the statutory right to appeal by an ever increasing number of convicts who take recourse to this remedy with the objective of defeating the ends of justice by obtaining orders of BAIL or exemption from surrender.COM 635(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.K.COM 634(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. inasmuch as it is intermixed with a facet of the 1st issue as to whether such a statement is to be treated as statement under Section 161 of the Code or it partakes the character of statement under Section 164 of the Code — as against the sentence of 10 years awarded to the appellant he has already undergone more than 9 years of sentence — a fit case to suspend further sentence till the disposal of this appeal by the larger Bench.K.S. Jural compulsions now dictate that this species of appeals should be consciously dismissed on the ground of occasioning a gross abuse of the judicial process and an annihilation of justice. Justice Vikramajit Sen. decided on 10/7/2013. was faulty in every respect — by issuing appropriate directions in this writ petition and by monitoring the same the grievances expressed by the petitioner can be duly redressed and the interest of the public at large can be duly safeguarded — directions issued. and thereupon escape beyond the reach of the law. Justice A. 2013 SCCL. 152 of 2013) Tofan Singh Appellant Vs. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. even if the officer is not treated as police officer also needs to be referred to the larger Bench. Subject Index: NDPS Act. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent . Alleging that the whole investigation which was initially held by the State police and thereafter by the CID and later by the CBI. 2013 SCCL.was pronounced dead. decided on 10/8/2013. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. State of Uttar Pradesh Respondent . 1985 — section 8(c) read with section 29 — conviction under — sections 42. is committed driven by extreme emotional disturbance and it does not have enormous proportion. which rested on circumstantial evidence or solely on approver’s evidence. The core of a criminal case is its facts and the facts differ from case to case — decision whether to impose death penalty or not must be taken in light of guiding principles laid down in several authoritative pronouncements of this Court in the facts and attendant circumstances of each case — murder was the outcome of strained personal relationship. therefore. Justice Ranjan Gogoi . Sathasivam. caution and circumspection — the High Court has considered the case in all its complexities. Similarly. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. He is not a confirmed criminal and no evidence is led by the State to indicate that he is likely to revert to such crimes in future. 2013 SCCL. therefore. 693 of 2007 ) Sushil Sharma Appellant Vs. . though brutal.C.T. the option of life imprisonment has been exercised in certain cases. Subject Index: Death sentence — awarded by the sessions court — confirmed by Delhi High Court — appeal. The routine is to file an appeal. decided on 10/8/2013. imperative to put an end to such practice by the expeditious disposal of appeals. The inherent powers of the High Court. in the peculiar factual matrix. can also be pressed into service but with care. at times. by special leave the appellant has challenged judgment and order — mere brutality of the murder or the number of persons killed or the manner in which the body is disposed of has not always persuaded this Court to impose death penalty. apply and get enlarged on BAIL or get exempted from surrender. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. this Court has not thought it fit to award death penalty in cases. The appellant has no criminal antecedents. It was not an offence against the Society. The argument that the High Court was duty-bound to appoint an amicus curiae is not legally sound. It is. Hon'ble Mrs. poignantly preserved in Section 482 of the CrPC. and thereafter wilfully to become untraceable or unresponsive. It is the bounden duty cast upon the Judge not merely to ensure that an innocent person is not punished but equally not to become a mute spectator to the spectacle of convict circumventing his conviction — it is. of Delhi Respondent.a view to circumvent and escape undergoing the sentences awarded against them. not possible in the facts of the case to say that there is no chance of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated — death sentence commuted to life imprisonment. Extreme poverty and social status has also been taken into account amongst other circumstances for not awarding death sentence — there can be no hard and fast rules which the court can follow while considering whether an accused should be awarded death sentence or not. Where murder. The State of N.COM 639(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1678 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 149. 439 and has acted on the bed rock of the order passed by the High Court in M.S. Lokur .COM 643(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Justice Vikrammajit Sen. 2013 SCCL. State of U. decided on 9/27/2013. the High Court has negated its own order by directing the trial court to release respondent no.Cr. 439 cancelled and he was asked to surrender and apply for regular BAIL learned sessions judge has absolutely misconstrued the . Subject Index: Bail — grant of — in challenge — Indian Penal Code. 1870 — sections 147. 701 of 2013 whereunder BAIL granted to the appellant u/s. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. State of Maharashtra[(2009) 8 SCC 325] & Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. 302 — charge under — appeals filed — keeping in view the criminal antecedents of respondent no 2 as well as the specific role assigned against him in the subject complaint. decided on 10/8/2013. 1973 — section 439 — BAIL petition — cancellation of — in challenge — learned additional sessions judge while granting regular BAIL has ignored the parameters laid u/s. Justice Dipak Misra. 1862 of 2013) Sudam Charan Dash Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 1679 of 2013) Atmaram Appellant Vs.C. State of M. 2 on BAIL — in view of the Judgments laid down in Savitri Agarwal v. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. 1545 of 2013) Ranjit Singh Appellant Vs.P. 323. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mrs. State of Orissa & another Respondents. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. No. & another Respondents.P.2013 SCCL. High Court has erred in granting BAIL to the said respondent — the Court completely lost perspective of the fact that intimidation of witnesses is a common occurrence at least as regards persons who have come into conflict with the law on multiple occasions.[(1980) 2 SCC 565] the aforesaid order set aside — appeal disposed. which is the case of the respondent — impugned Order is set aside and the BAIL of the said respondent cancelled — also the High Court erred in granting BAIL to One Rafal Singh another respondent — his BAIL/bonds shall stand cancelled — appeals disposed. Justice Madan B. State of Punjab. Justice T.COM 640(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Subject Index: Bail — grant of — in challenge — after rejecting the prayer for anticipatory BAIL. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. and others Respondents. Justice Anil R. decided on 10/25/2013.COM 702(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2013 SCCL. Subject Index: Code Criminal Procedure. Justice A.2013 granting BAIL to the appellant on certain conditions. especially when the investigation is yet to be completed — the ingredients of section under Section 326 IPC have not been satisfied — order passed by the High Court. Justice A. 2013 SCCL. Hema Mishra Appellant Vs. decided on 8/7/2013. 1128 of 2013) Nasiruddin Appellant Vs. Justice K. However. State (NCT) Delhi and Others Respondents.COM 707(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Radhakrishnan Desai and Hon'ble Mr.P. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.S. and others Respondents. 2014 SCCL. .K. Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 226 — writ under — once a writ is dismissed. The powers are. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. the State can always move for vacating the order — though the High Courts have very wide powers under Art. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. so much so that while entertaining writ petitions for granting interim protection from arrest. Justice K. express his opinion on merits that no case is made out under Section 326 IPC. all the interim reliefs granted would also go — this Court has already passed an interim order on 1. to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. The said order will continue till the completion of the trial. are set aside — appeal allowed. 146 of 2014) Km. if the appellant is not cooperating with the investigation. the very vastness of the powers imposes on it the responsibility to use them with circumspection and in accordance with the judicial consideration and well established principles. therefore.S. Sikri.226. even when the investigation is not yet over — to consider — held that question as to whether the case will fall under Section 326 IPC could be determined only after the investigation is completed — learned Additional Sessions Judge is not justified in expressing the opinion that since the injury is simple. Sikri. no offence under Section 326 IPC has been made out.order passed by the High Court — appeal disposed in terms of the modification in the order passed by the learned single Judge. 1973 — section 438 — can the Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with an application for anticipatory BAIL filed under Section 438 of the aforesaid Act. State of U.K.3. decided on 1/16/2014.COM 21(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. the Court would not go on to the extent of including the provision of anticipatory BAIL as a blanket provision — the provisions of Article 226 are a devise to advance justice and not to frustrate it. e. Kishanbhai Etc. Justice A. 1485 of 2008) State of Gujarat Appellant Vs. Justice J.with two sureties each of the like amount. decided on 1/7/2014. 2271 of 2011) Phula Singh Appellant Vs. 2014 SCCL. dismissed — Supreme Court framed guidelines for proper administration of case by State — acquittal of accused — failure of justice delivery system — State to put procedural mechanism — training programmes for junior investigation/prosecution officials — action against erring officers. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Hon'ble Mr. 50. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. (2) and (3) implication under — the appellants deserve to be enlarged on BAIL during the pendency of trial on furnishing personal securities in the sum of Rs.COM 28(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. 357-358 of 2014. Justice S. which may warrant interference by this court — the appeal is dismissed. Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. The appellant has been . 2014 SCCL. on every Monday to show their presence — they shall also inform the Court about their place of stay/ residence and disclose to the Court as to when there is a change of residence.m. 1988 — sections 7 and 13(2) — acquittal under — appeal — there is no perversity in the judgment of the High Court as it cannot be said that the judgment is not based on evidence or the evidence on record has not properly been reappreciated by the appellate court.S. Justice B. 376. 124(1) and 120(B) and Chhattisgarh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam — sections 8(1)(2)(3) and Unlawful Activities Act — sections (1). Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. Chelameswar.COM 102(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Sikri. at 10.K.30 a. decided on 3/3/2014. State of Himachal Pradesh Respondent. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.S. 369. to the satisfaction of the Trial Court — it would be subject to the condition that the appellants shall report to the concerned police station once a week i. decided on 2/7/2014. 394 and 302 — Bombay Police Act — Section 135 (1) — abduction of appellant's daughter — FIR registered — accused denied involvement — no evidence produced by appellant — inconsistency in witnesses statements — held no merit in appeal.000/. 1860 — sections 121. Respondents. 7913 of 2013) Lingaram Kodopi Appellant Vs.COM 57(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.2014 SCCL. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code — Sections 363. State of Chhattisgarh Respondent. enlarged on BAIL.COM 122(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. Vishnu Narain Shivpuri & another Respondents .COM 171(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. State of Gujarat & others Respondents. Justice R. Arising out of SLP (Crl. Justice Kurian Joseph.1925 of 2010. Co. Special Judge. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.) No. 492 of 2014. Ltd. 326-B and 506 — charge under — BAIL application filed by the respondent — . 2012 passed by the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No. Justice Ranjan Gogoi . 1860 — section 342. Subject Index: Indian Forest Act. He must surrender before the Ld. Subject Index: Investigation into the death — of Amit Jethwa a Right to Information activist be investigated by the CBI authorities and further directing that the proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the Gujarat Police shall remain stayed — this special leave petition impugns the judgment and order dated 25th September. 2014 SCCL. 1927 must be given a literal interpretation or a broad meaning — the word must be given a broad meaning in the surrounding context in which it is used.M. decided on 2/25/2014. 1975 read with Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act. Sikri. Lodha. 1102-1120 of 2014 Special Leave Petition (C) No. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. 8406 of 2012) Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Appellant Vs. 2014 SCCL. The BAIL bonds are cancelled. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 34691 of 2011) Godrej & Boyce Mfg. 1927 is sufficient for any land being declared a “private forest” within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act. 585 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. Connected therewith is the question whether the word “issued” in Section 2(f) (iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. decided on 3/10/2014. Hon'ble Mr. 766 of 2014)) Pooja Bhatia Appellant Vs. 2014 SCCL.K. The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents. Justice A. Justice Madan B. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. 1975 — the question must be answered in the negative. decided on 1/30/2014.COM 137(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. & another Appellants Vs. 1927 — section 35(3) — whether the mere issuance of a notice under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act. 01. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. Justice K. but spit on her T-shirt and it got burnt and taking note of his conduct after the impugned order of the High Court dated 16. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. The Sessions Court as well as the High Court. he had once again knocked at the portals of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.S. The Appellant shall not be arrested for a period of two weeks or till the final disposal of the said application. this Court had extended to him transient insulation from arrest for a period of four weeks to enable him to apply for regular BAIL — the learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that he was devoid of jurisdiction so far as the application presented to him by the Appellant — conceptually. consider the Appellant’s plea for his being granted BAIL.rejected — appeal before the High Court — the High Court by the impugned order after taking note of the submissions made by both the sides and considering the injury report as well as other factual matrix and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. both of which exercised concurrent powers under Section 439. would then have to venture to the merits of the matter so as to decide whether the applicant/Appellant had shown sufficient reason or grounds for being enlarged on BAIL — the impugned Order is. although.1348 of 2014]) Sundeep Kumar Bafna Appellant Vs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. this time around for regular BAIL under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).COM 173(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. thereafter. 2014 SCCL.2014. 1973 — section 439 — BAIL under — the futility of the Appellant’s endeavours to secure anticipatory BAIL having attained finality.)No. which was declined with the observations that it is the Magistrate whose jurisdiction has necessarily to be invoked and not of the High Court or even the Sessions Judge. he could have declined to accept the prayer to surrender to the Courts’ custody. Once the prayer for surrender is accepted. Justice Vikramajit Sen. The Learned Single Judge shall consider the Appellant’s plea for surrendering to the Court and dependent on that decision. State of Maharashtra & another Respondents . the Learned Single Judge shall. released Respondent No. set aside. the Hon'ble Court presently not aware of any reason for this option to be exercised. Court is satisfied that the accused is not entitled to continue the benefit of BAIL — order for early trial. 689 of 2014 [Arising out of SLP (Crl. 1 (herein) on BAIL — the said order is under challenge by the complainant in the present appeal — inasmuch as throwing acid on the complainant is a serious one though no injury on her. whichever is later — the learned Single Judge shall remain impervious to any pressure that may be brought to bear upon him either from the public or from the media as this is the . the Appellant would come into the custody of the Court within the contemplation of Section 439 CrPC. accordingly. The legality of this conclusion is the gravemen of the appeal — while declining to grant anticipatory BAIL to the Appellant. decided on 3/27/2014. 35402 of 2013) Mohd. 1827. 170. 124 and 125 of 2013. 123. decided on 4/15/2014.) No. 1825. Uttar Pradesh as a result of communal tension prevailing in the city. Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 155 of 2013 with Writ Petition (Crl. It is asserted in the petitions that since 27. 171. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr.) Nos.2013 more than 200 Muslims have been brutally killed and around 500 are still missing in the spurt of the incident in 50 villages of the Jat community dominated areas where the Muslim community is in minority. negligently and perhaps with certain amount of complicity. 1750. Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 32 — writ petition under — communal riots — broke out on 7-9-2013 — around District Muzaffarnagar.) No. decided on 25th of January. 1830 of 2013 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1974 — detention order passed under — High Court declining to quash the order — the detaining authority after scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals and the documents. Justice Ranjan Gogoi . Justice CHANDRAMAULI KR. 11 of 2014 Contempt Petition (Crl. 179. 2014 SCCL.000 persons have migrated under threat and have been forcibly asked to move out of the village otherwise they would be killed — directions issued. 1826.of 2014 (D1372) in Writ Petition (Crl.fundamental and onerous duty cast on every Judge. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1828.872 OF 2014) LICIL ANTONY Vs. 2014 SCCL. 1829. Haroon & others Petitioners Vs. The proposals of the detenu’s detention along with two others were considered by the screening committee which concurred with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority — Supreme Court is in . 206 of 2013. 165. 158. decided on 3/26/2014. Hon'ble Mrs. Union of India & another Respondents.…………. PRASAD and Hon'ble Mr. but also failed to monitor its proceedings.COM 175(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 155 of 2013 Transferred Case (Civil) Nos. Subject Index: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 2013. STATE OF KERALA & ANR. It is the stand of the petitioners that in the remote villages more than 40.COM 194(Case/Appeal No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. . Justice PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. which wrecked lives of a large number of people who fled from their homes out of anxiety and fear — it is the claim of the petitioners herein that the local administration instead of enforcing the law allowed the congregation not only to take place. 181 196. 2013 to place the proposals before the screening committee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February. Sathasivam.08. 5388 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. IPC on the allegation of hatching criminal conspiracy in the killing of the deceased — the High Court enlarged him on BAIL by the order dated 7th March. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mrs.agreement with the High Court that the BAIL order passed by the trial court in Andhra Pradesh is not a crucial and vital document and the omission by the detaining authority to consider the same has. 302 read with section 149 — trial under — acquittal of all the accused — acquittal set aside — the trial court’s view was not perverse. refusing to quash the same. Sathasivam. 5387 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2014 SCCL.COM 201(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 324. Ramana. Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 148. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. 2014 SCCL. 5392 . The High Court erred in disturbing it — the impugned judgment and order is set aside. Arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. State of Andhra Pradesh Respondent. It was a reasonably possible view.COM 253(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 307. Chief Justice P. 5389-5390 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 5391 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 of 2007) With Civil Appeal No. 1860 — sections 147. Pappu @ Suresh Budharmal Kalani Respondent. preferably within a period of one year from today on its own merits. The appellants in both the appeals are acquitted of all the charges. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr.10281 of 2009) Civil Appeal No.V.13199 of 2012)\ Civil Appeal No. Justice N. decided on 4/24/2014. 2375 of 2014) State of Maharashtra & another Appellants Vs.COM 211(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 2014 which is impugned herein — there is no doubt that the respondent is in jail for almost 9 years — it will take a number of years for the High Court to hear the appeal — Supreme Court thought it fit to request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. of 2014.18804-18805 of 2009) Civil Appeal No. Subject Index: Bail — granting of — appeal by the State — respondent — case registered under Section 120(B) read with Section 302.1424 of 2003 and 15 of 2004) Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah & others Appellants Vs. decided on 4/22/2014. 2014 SCCL. in no way affected its subjective satisfaction — Supreme Court does not find any error in the order of detention and the order passed by the High Court. It was taken after thorough marshalling of evidence. 84. 2009 and the notification dated 11. Saharas filed an appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) who concurred with the view taken by the SEBI. in connection with the conduct of Jallikattu. laws. in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.S. 2014 SCCL. decided on 6/4/2014. Appellant Vs.412 . 260 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act. directed Saharas to refund the amount collected from the . culture. (C) Nos. from the date of the receipt of the deposits till the date of such repayment — Aggrieved by the order aforementioned. 101-103 in Contempt Petitions (C) No. directing the promoter Mr. Bullock-cart races etc. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose. & others Respondents. but upholding the judgment of Bombay High Court and the notification dated 11.145 of 2011 And T. with particular reference to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.B.S. Sikri. 1960. Ravi Shankar Dubey and Mr. and while affirming the order passed by the SEBI.7. which are to be examined.2011 issued by the Central Government. transferred cases and the Writ Petition are disposed of setting aside the judgment of the Madras High Court.4598 of 2013) Civil Appeal No. Justice K. A. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. 97.I.COM 275(Case/Appeal No: I. 98 and 127 of 2013) Animal Welfare Board of India Appellant Vs.7. Mr. 8643 of 2012) S. Subject Index: Equity shares/OFCDS or any other securities — direction of sebi to saharas not to offer — in any manner whatsoever either directly or indirectly pending further orders — aggrieved by the said order Saharas approached the High Court at Bombay but the High Court not only declined to interfere with the directions issued by SEBI but also passed a further order on 23rd June. tradition. 5394 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.E. NOs. Subrata Roy Sahara and Directors Miss Vandana Bhargava. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. 86. 12789 of 2014) (@ SLP(C) CC…4268 of 2013) Writ Petition (C) No.2011 issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act — issue of seminal importance with regard to the Rights of Animals under our Constitution. 5393 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7.413 of 2012 in Civil Appeals No.K. 1960 the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act.2011 issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act — directions issued — Appeals.a.A. Ashok Roy Choudhary of Saharas to jointly and severely refund the amount collected by Saharas in terms of the RHPs issued by them alongwith interest @ 15% p. Nagaraja & others Respondents. Justice T. 2009 and the notification dated 11. 85.13200 of 2012) Civil Appeal No.of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2011. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. decided on 5/7/2014. 9813 and 9833 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (C) No.C. religion and ethology. Subject Index: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. The High Court referred to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He submitted that while considering the BAIL application. rigorous imprisonment — the respondent was.S.(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. the Hon’ble Supreme Court refer these proceedings to a three-Judge Bench to be constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India — Mr. inter alia. sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay fine of Rs. The appeal has been admitted. 2014 SCCL.1. after his release on BAIL — deem it appropriate. in the facts of this case. The State of Rajasthan has challenged the said Order — learned Additional Solicitor General of India assailed the impugned order and pointed out that quantity involved is huge. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mrs.investors within a period of six weeks — keeping in view the importance of the issues that fall for determination in these proceedings and the ramifications that the directions issued by this Court may have as also the fact that one very important order which is sought to be enforced in these proceedings was passed by a three-Judge Bench. after his release on BAIL — deem it appropriate. The High Court observed that it was suspending the sentence of the respondent without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. the High Court should have focused its attention on Section 37 (1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act — stated that the High Court has not expressed any opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty — there is substance in the submission — the High Court was not oblivious of Section 37 as it has referred to it.601 of 2013) State of Rajasthan Petitioner Vs. Nariman. the BAIL cannot be cancelled — there is nothing to show that the respondent has indulged in any objectionable activities. the High Court granted BAIL to the respondent. Senior Advocate to assist the Court as an amicus curiae. Justice Madan B. therefore.000/. F. therefore.50. It would have been better if the High court had concentrated on Section 37 (1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. decided on 4/7/2014. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. However. Shri Nariman shall be free to associate two juniors of his choice to brief him in the matter.COM 280(Case/Appeal No: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s). The respondent carried an appeal to the Rajasthan High Court. the BAIL cannot be cancelled — there is nothing to show that the respondent has indulged in any objectionable activities. not to interfere with the . Surendra Sharma Respondent. Subject Index: A) NDPS Act. not to interfere with the impugned order. By the impugned order. 1985 — section 8 read with section 20 and section 8 read with section 29 — respondent charged with offences punishable under — acquittal by trial Court of the offences under section 8 read with section 29 of the NDPS Act — convicted for offence under section 8 read with section 20(b) — sentenced to 15 years. B) BAIL cancellation — in the facts of this case. Lokur. on this ground. decided on 1/27/2014.S. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Justice Mr. Jaipal Verma Respondent. (Crl.P — the appellants shall be enlarged on BAIL subject to their furnishing BAIL bond of Rs. Subject Index: NDPS Act.P/U.78 Kg Ketamine and 5.L. Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Justice Mr. decided on 6/7/2014.P.P. 2014 SCCL.S. 1985 — on search 0. Respondents.P/E. Court is not inclined to condone the delay. Ranjan Gogoi.000/.P. Directorate of Revenue Respondent.) No.20. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2014 SCCL. Act — BAIL granted cancelled — the licence for manufacture and sale (or for distribution) of drugs other than those specified in Schedule C. of 10 ml for veterinary use . Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Justice Mr. Union of India & another etc.COM 297(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties. 3889 of 2012)) Inderpal Singh Appellant Vs.COM 296(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Subject Index: A) NDPS Act. MP.P.D.COM 293(Case/Appeal No: Crl. Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Justice Mr.P/B. 4134-4136 of 2011)) Narayanbhai Mangaldas Patel & etc.) No.impugned order. decided on 5/7/2014. C(1) & X manufactured by M/s Shree Sharda Chemicals included Diazepam I. No(s) 389 of 2014) Union of India Petitioner Vs.1127 of 2014 (arising out of S. 1985 — section 37 — question of law relating to Section 37 of the NDPS Act is left open and to be decided in an appropriate case.11301132 of 2014 (arising out of S. There is a delay of 291 days — in view of the fact that the petitioner being the Government and in the absence of adequate reasons. (Crl. Appellants Vs.D. Justice Ranjan Gogoi. B) Delay condonation of — petitioner-Union of India has filed the present Special Leave Petition against the grant of BAIL to the respondent-accused who has served nearly eight years and eight months out of the sentence of ten years.405 Kg white powder suspected to be Ketamine along with 100 vials of Ketamine hydrochloride injection I.P.L. Subject Index: NDPS Rules — schedule — Diazepam — possession of — appeals by accused — by the impugned order at the instance of respondent Union of India the High Court cancelled the BAIL granted to the appellants in the N. 2014 SCCL. Ranjan Gogoi.S Special Case — Diazepam covered under Schedule I to the NDPS Rules could not be possessed by any person and the possession of such substance could be regulated only by the provisions of the N. decided on 5/1/2014. set aside the impugned order dated 13. which were seized under the provisions of the N. 1985 — accused while being taken to the sessions court expressed his desire to see his ailing mother — some substance was mixed with tea for the escort person by the relations of the accused — accused Shiva absconded from the custody of these persons — complaint filed against senior most person of the said escort party — the petitioners were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 222 IPC vide judgment and order dated 9.S.000/. Subject Index: NDPS Act. decided on 5/6/2014.22 quintal of poppy-straw was recovered from the appellant and.20. suspend the sentence and enlarge the appellant on BAIL in connection with Special S.09.S.P. Chauhan. Eqbal. Vikramajit Sen. Petitioner nos.1020 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (Crl. 2014 SCCL.and in default thereto. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Justice Mr. No. he was convicted for the offence — taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.) No. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. 101 of 2008 subject to his furnishing BAIL bond of Rs. B. Justice M. therefore.11. 2014 SCCL.5. Act — prayer for anticipatory BAIL has been rejected — appellant has preferred this appeal — appellant referred to licence granted under Form 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rule for manufacturing of any of the drugs specified in Schedule-C and (i) excluding those specified in Schedule 9 and 10 not included in the annexure and submitted that the appellant has valid licence to manufacture Ketamine hydrochloride — in the event of arrest the appellant shall be enlarged on BAIL subject to his furnishing BAIL bond of Rs. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr.2006 and the petitioner no. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mr. Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Justice Mr.000/-. Justice J.636 of 2009.000/-.T. Subject Index: Petition against the interim order passed by the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal — FIR registered under NDPS Act. 50.D. State of Gujarat Respondent.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.2 and 3 were convicted under Section 222 IPC — the petitioners preferred Criminal . Respondent.1 was awarded 3 years' RI and a fine of Rs.were recoverd. 9483 of 2013)) Mishrilal Appellant Vs. 1985 — sections 8/15 and 8/25 — conviction under — appellant convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and out of which he has already spent more than eight years in custody — 24.Y.COM 298(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. State of M. Court allows the prayer. to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.COM 302(Case/Appeal No: Petition(s) for Special leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s) 453 of 2014) Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & others Petitioners Vs.P. 1973 was necessarily required. However. he was released on BAIL — the entire recovery of the contraband allegedly recovered from the appellant is shrouded in mystery and in any case. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr.2013 and directed the appeal to be re-heard — a Judge's responsibility is very heavy. the appellant had . Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. B) NDPS Act.S.12.COM 306(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. the mandatory procedure as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not adhered to — there were material contradictions in the statements made by different police officers who appeared as witnesses in support of the prosecution case — doubt about the genuineness of the sample which was collected and sent for chemical examination. 1902 of 2009) Manjit Singh @ Raju Appellant Vs. Therefore.12. Charge was framed under Section 18 of the NDPS Act and the appellant was convicted by the Special Judge. Hoshiarpur. no Gazetted Officer was asked to remain present at the time of search and to cover this lapse.12. Justice A. B. decided on 5/23/2014. 2014 SCCL. the petitioners had been enlarged on BAIL vide order dated 22. 1 kg of opium was recovered from the scooter of the appellant. and in view thereof.Appeal No. 1 lakh and appeal against the conviction filed dismissed by the High Court — it is this judgment which is impugned — by the time this appeal came up for hearing. The matter was investigated thereafter on the basis of which challan was submitted before the Special Judge.2013 was recalled by the court suo moto vide order dated 27.2013 and the court took a view that sanction of the State Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. which is contrary to the record — there are so many material contradictions and the officers have given different versions — in his statement.2012 of 2006 before the High Court of Gujarat and during the pendency of the appeal.2006. Justice Mr. Hoshiarpur and he was directed to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of Rs. State of Punjab Respondent. the appellant had served substantial part of the sentence. During the pendency of the appeal. that the Judge would not have changed his mind before the judgment becomes final — no exception can be taken to the procedure adopted by the High Court in the instant case. the order was dictated in open court allowing the appeal on technical issue — the order dictated in open court and acquitting the petitioners vide order dated 11. 1985 — section 50 — non-compliance of — the appellant had in fact exercised his option to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer. the police officers gave false statement. particularly. 1985 — section 18 — FIR under — as per the FIR. The appeal was finally heard on 11. one cannot assume. admittedly. in a case where a man's life and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or doubt or conjecture. Sikri. Subject Index: A) NDPS Act.K.11. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr.COM 321(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.COM 310(Case/Appeal No: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s). 2014 SCCL. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla . Court is of the prima facie opinion that the appellant has not committed any offence under the NDPS Act and this is a fit case in which the appellant should be released on BAIL to the satisfaction of the trial court — the appellant shall be released on BAIL to the satisfaction of the trial court in connection with FIR No.K. 2014 SCCL. decided on 7/2/2014. Justice S. A. In absence of any merit. the appeal is dismissed. decided on 4/17/2014. 292 of 2011) Pradeep Kumar Appellant Vs.A.9170 of 2013) Deepak Monga Petitioner Vs. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr.286 dated 10 July. 1860 — Section 498-A and 304B — conviction under — confirmed by the High Court — appeal — on the basis of the evidence of Subedar Sapattar Singh (PW-8) and dying declaration. 1985 — petition under — appellant had a drug licence for running a chemist shop and that his drug licence was cancelled and he had filed a statutory appeal and during the pendency of the appeal some medicines were found which were alleged to be containing narcotic substances.categorically stated that he wanted to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer and contrary to the said statement. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Justice Mr. Bobde . the appellant was searched by the SHO and the police party only and the police has tried to make out a case as if the appellant had not made a statement that he wanted to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer which statement of the police officers is clearly false and it is contrary to Exhibit PD — the contradictions which are material in nature and go to the root of the matter falsify the prosecution story and it cannot be said that the case has been proved against the appellant — there is breach of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act. Appellant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve the remainder period of sentence. State of Haryana Respondent. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. it can be clearly concluded that the Trial Court and the High Court rightly held that the accused Pradeep Kumar had subjected Manju to harassment as defined under Clause (b) of explanation to Section 498-A — no ground to interfere with impugned judgment. BAIL bond stands cancelled. State of Haryana Respondent. . Subject Index: NDPS Act. 2012 — aforesaid prima facie opinion will not influence the trial court in the trial. Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. it is an admitted fact that the respondents had been granted BAIL earlier and they did not misuse the liberty — the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant facts including the fact that the chance of the appeal being heard in the near future is extremely remote. Lodha. Justice V. Secondly. Whereas Chapter VII deals exclusively with various other aspects of DEALING IN psychotropic substances and the conditions subject to which such DEALING IN is permitted — both Rules 53 and 64 are really in the nature of exception to the general scheme of Chapters VI and VII respectively containing a list of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which cannot be dealt in any manner notwithstanding the other provisions of these two chapters — neither Rule 53 nor Rule 64 is a source of authority for prohibiting the DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Deshpande Respondents. 848.1985 — Prosecution under — each one of the accused is alleged to be in possession of some psychotropic substance mentioned in the Schedule to the Act.2014 SCCL. 1710-1717 of 2014) Union of India and Another Appellants Vs. Justice A. Court is of the opinion.COM 398(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.Gopala Gowda .855.COM 415(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Hon'ble Mr.Appellant Vs. 660 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal No. Sikri. decided on 8/7/2014. Justice Dipak Misra & Hon'ble Mr. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code. both these Chapters contain Rules permitting and regulating the import and export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances other than those specified in the Schedule-I to the 1985 Rules subject to various conditions and procedure stipulated in Chapter VI.M. Vipin Kumar and others … Respondent(s). the source is Section 8. In some of these cases.1664 of 2014) Sunil Kumar…. Sanjeev V. Justice J. the High Court has released the respondents on BAIL on the basis of sound legal reasoning. 2014 SCCL. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. hence. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Chief Justice R. Rajesh Kumar Gupta’s case in Court's view is wrongly decided — the complete analysis of the implications of Section . decided on 8/12/2014. the question is whether persons accused of committing an offence under the Act could be enlarged on BAIL in view of the stipulations contained under Section 37 of the Act.K. 1973 — Section 389 — enlarging the respondents on BAIL — discretionary power — rightly applied by High Court — both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by both the parties are pending before the High Court which means that the convictions of the respondents are not confirmed by the appellate court.876 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. Eventually. BAIL was granted by the concerned High Court and in some cases. BAIL was rejected — on the analysis of the provisions of chapters VI and VII of the 1985 Rules. Justice M. 22 and other sections of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. 1957 — whether the provisions contained in Sections 21. 1985 deals with a more specific class of drugs and. Justice M. Court deems it appropriate to remit all these matters to the concerned High Courts for passing of appropriate orders in the light of this judgment. 1940 (23 of 1940) or the rules made thereunder. the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.) of the Act is not really called for in the instant case. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. a special law on the subject — further the provisions of the Act operate in addition to the provisions of 1940 Act — the fact that most of these matters are old matters [pertaining to years 2006 to 2013]. 1860 — Sections 304-B and 498-A — conviction under High Court allowed the appeal of one person — on the appeal preferred by the aforesaid three accused persons under Article 136 of the Constitution. 2014 SCCL.1 — this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the . 499 of 2011 With Civil Appeal Nos.80 (Section 80. this Court on 12. purchase etc.Y.COM 451(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. decided on 9/4/2014. 1816 of 2009) Sri Chand and another Appellants Vs. Application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.2 & 3 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the husband-accused no. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1860 and Mines and Minerals ( Development and Regulation) Act. decided on 9/19/2014.2009. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose . sale. Sanjay Respondent(s). 1940 not barred — the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. 1957 operate as bar against prosecution of a person who has been charged with allegation which constitutes offences under Section 379/114 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code — whether the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act explicitly or impliedly excludes the provisions of Indian Penal Code when the act of an accused is an offence both under the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. 2105-2112 of 2013) State of NCT of Delhi Appellant(s) Vs.5. therefore.COM 491(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. confined the appeal to accused nos. 2014 SCCL. 1940 deals with various operations of manufacture. of drugs generally whereas Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. while directing issuance of notice in the matter. State of Punjab Respondent. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre. It is only required to be stated that essentially the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code.Y. and not in derogation of. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Furthermore. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. u/s 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act and under section 18 and 13(1)(a)b) of UAPA — case transferred to NIA — the materials adverted to show that it was a final report on the facets investigated into by the investigating agency. 153(A).High Court. and others Petitioners Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent.Y. 2014 SCCL. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit .) Nos. Justice M.C. the requisite sanctions as required under Sections 18 and 18A of the UAPA and so also under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act were also accorded by the concerned authorities — Section 167(2) of Cr. National Investigation Agency Respondent. 1860 — sections 143. decided on 9/26/2014. 7733 of 2014) Abdul Azeez P V. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre. 2014 SCCL.COM 557(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.COM 546(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed and the BAIL bonds of the accused-appellants stand cancelled. 2079 of 2009) Liyakat and Another Appellants Vs. 2009 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the appellants and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for further trial — the High Court has erred in law in setting aside the trial court judgment and remanding the matter back for retrial and a fresh decision. It is a fit case where the High Court should decide the appeal on merit — Court remands the matter back to the High Court to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law.P. 24462447 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl. decided on 11/14/2014. Subject Index: Appeal by special leave — directed against the judgment and order dated 4th February. 2014 SCCL.C. failing which. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. State of Maharashtra & . the trial court is directed to take appropriate steps for sending them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 149 read with section 25)1)(a) of Arms Act. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 153(B). 3527-3528 of 2014)) Rakesh Baban Borhade Appellant Vs. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining period of the sentence. stood fully complied with and as such the petitioners are not entitled to statutory BAIL under Section 167(2) of Cr.Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr.P.COM 511(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 147. The appellants shall remain on BAIL till further orders of the High Court in the matter. the accused persons did not transfer the lands as promised in the MOU — the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of rupees one crore in the Registry of the Supreme Court and in compliance of the said order. pending further investigation.V.L. Subject Index: Anticipatory BAIL applications dismissed by High Court — filed by the appellant while granting anticipatory BAIL to two other persons arrayed as accused in the same case — appeal — it is alleged that inspite of the timely payment of Rs. Ltd. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Ms. 4221 of 2012)  ) Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Port of Bombay Respondent . K. Board of Trustees. Civil Appeal No. 802 of 2005 Civil Appeal No. The suit was dismissed. Justice R. Sheikh Mohd. Pvt.(C) No.Merit Magnum Construction) is permitted to withdraw rupees one crore deposited by the appellant in this Court. the High Court held that the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Trustees of the Port of Madras through Its Chairman Vs. 7094 of 2002 Civil Appeal No. Justice R. Since the transaction is in the nature of commercial transaction and since the appellant has also shown his bonafide by depositing rupees one crore. the High Court reversed the decree holding the Steamer Agent to be liable. and Another[(1997) 10 SCC 285 = AIR 1995 SC 1922] — once the bill of lading is endorsed or the delivery order is issued it is the consignee or endorsee who would be liable to pay the demurrage charges and other dues of the Port Trust authority.K. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Agrawal. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. The amount fetched in the auction fell short of the total charges payable which led the said authority to file a suit against the Steamer Agent for the balance amount. 10719 of 2014 (Arising Out of S. Without prejudice to the contention of the parties. 2014 SCCL. 7092 of 2002.P.256/-. 7088 of 2002.22. In appeal. Justice V. the appellant has deposited rupees one crore. 2134 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No. In doing so. In all other situations the contract of BAILment is one between the Steamer Agent (bailor) and the Port Trust Authority (bailee) giving rise to the liability of the Steamer Agent for such charges till such time that the bill of lading is endorsed or delivery order is issued by the Steamer . the goods were sold by public auction by the Port Trust authority after almost four years of receipt thereof.COM 582(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. Subject Index: Demurrage and Port charges — payment of — the liability of the agent of a ship owner to pay demurrage and port charges to the Board of Trustees of a Port in respect of goods brought into the port and warehoused by the said authority — the consignee of the goods not having either cleared the same or having responded to any of the notices issued. Civil Appeal No.another Respondents.7. anticipatory BAIL could be granted to the appellant — the appellant shall co-operate with the investigating agency. decided on 12/3/2014. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. the complainant — second respondent (M/s. Banumathi. decided on 11/19/2014. Ltd. Rowther & Co. Appellant Vs.P.12. Justice C. 23272331 of 2009) State of Punjab Appellant Vs. Justice V.Agent — the special provisions of Sections 61 and 62 of the Act which enable the Port Trust authority to proceed against the goods within its custody to recover the charges which may be payable to the Port Trust authority. Subject Index: National Security Act. 2014 SCCL.Y. Nabila and another Respondents. All these appeals are heard together and common judgment is rendered — all the criminal appeals are dismissed.COM 602(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2014. Ordinarily and in the normal course if resort is made to the enabling provisions in the Act of 1963 to proceed against the goods for recovery of the charges payable to the Port Trust authority there may not be any occasion for the said authority to sustain any loss or even suffer any shortfall of the dues payable to it so as to initiate recovery proceedings against the ship owners. Even if the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr.4199 of 2013)) The Secretary to Government. decided on 12/9/2014. Justice M. 2328 of 2009 shall be cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Additional . Nagappan . Justice Shiva Kirti Singh . 2014 SCCL. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. The BAIL granted to the appellant/accused Surjit Singh in Criminal Appeal no. Public (Law and Order-F) and another Appellants Vs. decided on 12/17/2014. it is for the detaining authority to take a decision in accordance with law — the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. 2329-2331 of 2009. 1860 — section 302 — the State of Punjab aggrieved by the acquittal of five of the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal Nos.COM 612(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2545 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. the detenu cannot and shall not be taken into custody for serving the remaining period of detention unless there still exist materials to the satisfaction of the detaining authority for putting him under detention — initial detention order having been expired long back. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Jagga Singh etc. 1980 — section 3(1)(a) — detention order under — quashed by DB of the Madras High Court — appeal by special leave — the High Court held that the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real or imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on BAIL is vitiated in law — a long time has lapsed inasmuch as the period of detention fixed in the order of detention has already expired in April. Respondents. 4 in Crl.Y. by firing bullet from country made pistol — the High Court granted BAIL taking into account the contention that the deceased sustained two fatal injuries and rest of the injuries were on non-vital parts and also having regard to the period of custody of the respondent — a perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that the . Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel. and Ram Prasad. son of Nathu Lal (sole appellant in Crl. in Village Dhodi — there were 29 accused persons named in the FIR. & another Respondents . Bhagwan Singh.COM 8(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.S. it is expected that at least three witnesses should be in a position to name individual accused persons for sustaining his conviction — the appeals preferred by the five appellants. 91 of 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh. District Kanpur Nagar for causing death of Aftaab Alam on 3rd September. Ludhiana to serve out the remaining sentence. decided on 1/6/2015. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Appeal No. Anwarganj. They are granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges. State of U. Appeal No. 1959 — the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 10th September 2001 at 06:45 p.M. son of Bheru Lal (appellant no. son of Prabhu Lal (appellant no. all residents of Village Dhodi — since the accused persons and the 6 material eye witnesses in this case are co-villagers. 1. namely. their BAIL bonds shall stand cancelled and they shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence in accordance with law. State of Rajasthan Respondent . Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. decided on 1/15/2015.1239 of 2009).Sessions Judge. The appeals of remaining 16 appellants are dismissed. Appeal No.1241 of 2009).493 of 2009). Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. 1239 of 2009.m.S. 1194 of 2011.112 of 2006 under Section 302/384/307/120-B IPC.P. 9247 of 2013)) Mansoor Alam Appellant Vs. Appeal No. 1860 — section 302/149 307/149 147 and 148 — 21 persons have been convicted under — accused nos.493 of 2009) are allowed. P. son of Ram Dhakad (appellant no.COM 16(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Suresh Kumar. Subject Index: Bail — granting of — appeal — the respondent Moni alias Mohd.3 in Crl. Ahmad stands convicted under Section 302/34/120B Indian Penal Code in proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.30 P. 2015 SCCL. Appeal No.3 in Crl.4 in Crl. Kanhi Ram.1239 of 2009). 1241 of 2009. 2006 at 09. Justice M. If on BAIL.1238 of 2009. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Prahlad Singh. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. 2015 SCCL. 2 and 3 have also been convicted for offences under section 27 of the Arms Act. son of Prabhu Lal (appellant no. and 1892 of 2011) Inder Singh & others Appellants Vs. 493-495 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 2004. 8 and 13 and also adverted to the power of Registrar to make entries of satisfaction and release. Nagappan . Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.2013 for an offence which had taken place on 15. There is no doubt that respondent No.COM 26(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. but the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the respondent has criminal antecedents and direct role in the murder which render the order granting BAIL vulnerable cannot be brushed aside. if a condition subsequent is not satisfied. 94 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. It has also expressed the view that in the absence of any proceeding. 2015 SCCL. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. CBI filed what they called the charge sheet which is alleged by the appellant as a misnomer because it does . decided on 1/15/2015. in the facts and circumstances. is not called for. decided on 1/9/2015. Limited Respondent.COM 40(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code.antecedents of respondent No. that would not change the status of the appellant as a secured creditor — the appellant cannot be treated as an unsecured creditor and it is not permissible for him to put forth a stand that it would not be bound by the Scheme that has been approved by the learned Company Judge.4. On 3.P. the Division Bench has referred to the Form No. in any case. which is popularly known as the fake encounter death of Ishrat Jahan. In any case. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. B. 2701 of 2006) Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited Appellant Vs. CBI & others Respondents.L. Subject Index: Companies Act. The offence alleged against the appellant was punishable with life imprisonment or death and what is popularly called Default BAIL becomes the indefeasible right on the expiry of 90 days in the event of non filing of police report by then. 9599 of 2013)) Narendra Kumar Amin Appellant Vs. that would be in a different realm altogether. the finding has been recorded that the respondent was not at fault and.6. as provided under Sections 138 and 139 of the Act.7. the status of the company as a secured creditor continues — after registration of the deed of hypothecation. 1973 — section 167(2) — default BAIL under — rejected by the Gujarat High Court — appeal under — the appellant/accused was arrested on 4.2 have not been taken into account — order granting BAIL. The formalities for creating the charge having duly followed.2013 the first respondent viz. for it was registered as such under the Registrar of Companies.2 appears to have undergone imprisonment for more than eight years. 1956 — sections 138 and 139 — secured creditors — the appellant shall remain as a secured creditor. Justice Anil R. Justice V. Justice C. Justice Dipak Misra . 2015 SCCL. 2013 which is evident from the order passed by him — the said order remains unchallenged by the appellant. Additional Director General of Police. one of her earlier letters of complaint to some police officials which had been withdrawn by the appellant in April-May 2001. — the High Court is right in rejecting the prayer of default BAIL under Section 167 (2) of Cr. 220 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.12.)Nos.C.9. Deepak Gupta & others Respondents.C. was changed and tampered as per convenience and a photocopy of such undated complaint making out a weak case against the respondents which was bound to fail. Raipur by the Town Inspector of this Thana under pressure of accused no.300-302 of 2013]) Sonu Gupta Appellant Vs. Raipur — in the interest of justice.COM 71(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. it is not open for him to turn around and contend that cognizance was not taken by the learned ACJM on 3. 468 and 471 — he respondents are accused in this Complaint Case which was filed on 07.not comply with the statutory requirement of police report under Sections 173 (2) and 173(5) of Cr. decided on 2/4/2015. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh . 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — the substance of the accusation in the instant complaint case is that anticipating legal action by the appellant against renewed mental torture and harassment by the respondent no.P. Subject Index: Bail application — dismissal by Division Bench of the High Court — appeal — the offence alleged against the appellant has serious adverse impact on the fabric of the society. The offence is of high magnitude indicating illegal admission to large number of .L.6 to 9 shall be granted benefit of BAIL by the learned Magistrate if they appear within 10 weeks and apply for same. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. court direct that in the facts of the case accused nos. decided on 2/11/2015.P. PHQ. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code. Justice T. cognizance was taken by the learned ACJM on 3. Respondent .10. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .73/2002) on 06.2002 in the Mahila Thana. as a stratagem and outcome of a conspiracy. Vinod Bhandari Appellant Vs. 285-287 of 2015 [Arising out of S. 2015 SCCL.P. Therefore.COM 57(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.2013. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. State of M. was got registered at the instance of the accused persons themselves with the help of some police officials as Criminal Case (FIR No.S. The Magistrate shall of course be at liberty to set reasonable conditions for such grant.2010 for alleged offences under Section 464.7. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr.7506 of 2014)) Dr. 1860 — sections 464. Justice Anil R.(Crl. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr.7. 2015 SCCL.P.) No.1 and his other relations named as accused. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Upon the filing of the police report. Apart from showing depravity of character and generation of black money. the offence has the potential of undermining the trust of the people in the integrity of medical profession itself. supreme court does not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the trial Court and the High Court in declining BAIL. If undeserving candidates are admitted to medical courses by corrupt means. seriously jeopardising the interest of justice. not only the society will be deprived of the best brains treating the patients. go back .undeserving candidates to the medical courses by corrupt means. the patients will be faced with undeserving and corrupt persons treating them in whom they will find it difficult to repose faith — when the allegations are supported by material on record and there is a potential of trial being adversely influenced by grant of BAIL.