In the case of Tousif Kha S/o Yusuf Kha V/s. State of M.P. & Others (Cr.A. No.6530/2021), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently granted bail to one Tousif Khan, who was accused of developing a relationship with a woman by lying to her about his religious identity and committing rape under a false pretence of marriage.  The Court observed that the Prosecutrix appeared to be a major at the time of the occurrence, and based on her assertions, it is possible that she gave her consent.

Brief Facts Of The Case: Justice Pranay Verma was dealing with a bail plea by Khan (Appellant), who was accused with violating Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 506-B IPC, Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, and Sections 3(1)()(1), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the prosecution, the Prosecutrix’s father reported that she was missing despite best attempts. She was found with the Appellant after the complaint. Her statement said she met the appellant two months ago and he told her his name was Vikas. He kept seeing her and eventually proposed. She believed him and followed him, and he subsequently raped her. The Prosecutrix visited him again after a few days and accompanied him to Ujjain, where he confessed his true identity was Tausif Khan and he was a Muslim. The prosecutrix alleges the appellant repeatedly raped her after she refused to marry him.

The appellant claimed he was innocent and wrongfully accused. He also said the prosecutor was a major who willingly met him and went with him. Throughout, she consented. He maintained that her remarks and behaviour proved she had intentionally created a physical connection with him and continued to do so after learning his true identity. He advocated for bail. Per contra, the State argued that based on the claims against the Appellant and the information acquired by the prosecution, he was not entitled to bail, especially because the Prosecutor said in her testimony that she learned of his genuine faith only on the day of recovery.

Judgement: After reviewing the evidence, the Court noted that the Prosecutrix had made conflicting claims and that she was a major, therefore the presence of consent could not be completely ruled out. With the aforementioned considerations, the Court determined that the Appellant deserved to be released on bail and granted the bail request as a result.

 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRAKIRTI JENA

Click Here To View Judgement

Young teenagers, who are often under parental supervision, are able to acquire the illegal substance. Unquestionably, the medicine is made available through a well-managed supply chain, upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, in the case of Satish Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

 (Cr.MP(M) No. 299 of 2020).

 

Brief facts of the case:

142 grammes of heroin were retrieved and confiscated from a vehicle inhabited by the petitioners. Petitioner Dilbar Khan was behind the wheel while petitioner Rajinder Sharma was the other passenger. The police had previous knowledge of the crime. Complying with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, the contraband was subsequently found at around 10.30 p.m. at Bashalti, close to Madhod Kenchi, under the jurisdiction of the Sunni Police Station.

According to confidential intelligence acquired by the authorities, two cars transporting contraband were nearing Sunni. The information was determined to be accurate, and both of the aforementioned cars were captured. As shown above, while nothing incriminating was retrieved from one car, 142 grammes of heroin were seized from the other vehicle.

All of the passengers in both cars, according to the police, had imported heroin from Delhi to sell to clients in Sunni regions. The petitioners were detained on March 10, 2002. According to reports, the enquiry is concluded and a challan is in the process of being filed with the court.

In this case, petitioners have petitioned the High Court for bail on the basis that they are innocent and have been wrongfully accused. Their co-accused Mohit and Parvez were granted bail by the Special Judge (CBI) in Shimla on February 20, 2002. The petitioners are natives of Himachal Pradesh and come from reputable families. They are rooted in the community, and there is little concern that they would evade punishment or depart the scene of the crime. The petitioners have agreed not to alter the prosecution’s evidence.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the amount of contraband found in this instance is intermediate, or less than commercial quantities. Petitioners have no history of involvement in NDPS Act violations. Their extended imprisonment will serve no use.

JUDGEMNET:

After hearing the argument, the court determined that the amount of contraband in this case is intermediate, and consequently Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply. It may not be sufficient for bail to be granted simply because the amount of contraband seized is smaller than the commercial quantity.

In addition, the court concluded that the recovery of 142 grammes of heroin from the petitioners might clearly be associated with the aforementioned organised crime. 142 grammes of heroin cannot be believed to be in the petitioners’ possession for personal use. In light of the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to bail. The petitioners’ rights must be evaluated against the wider public interest.

In light of the considerable amount of heroin discovered from the petitioners, the court determined that it would not be unreasonable to presume that the petitioners were transporting the contraband for sale to the customers, which include a number of teenagers, young students, etc. The absence of any prior case brought against the petitioners under the NDPS Act does not necessarily indicate that they are first-time offenders under the NDPS Act. The way in which the petitioners’ actions were found throughout the enquiry is conclusive evidence of their criminal intent.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI

Click here to view your judgement

Under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot be petitioned to extend parole, is upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, in the case of Mohd. Margoob v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr, (Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 470 of 2022).

 

Brief facts of the case:

Petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to request a parole extension due to medical reasons. The HP Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release), Act, 1968, and the Rules promulgated thereunder specify the criteria that must be met before a convicted prisoner may be granted parole.

Faced with the aforementioned circumstance, the petitioner’s attorney requested permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appropriate petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with further submissions that until filing of Civil Writ Petition, petitioner may not be subjected to action by concerned authorities for not surrendering before the concerned Jail Superintendent for the expiration of his parole period because he is suffering from a serious illness and is unable to travel.

Taking into account the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for filing anew comprehensive petition, and in case petition is prefered within a reasonable period and taking into account the peculiar condition of health of: petitioner, as placed on record, respondent Authority is directed not to take coercive action until July 15, 2022, allowing petitioner to file an appropriate petition.

JUDGEMNET:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has concluded that a prisoner/convict cannot be given extension of parole while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’). A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur also indicated that such claims might be accepted under the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI

Click here to view your judgement

The court dismisses a boy’s suo moto PIL alleging indentured servitude., is upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, in the case of 12.07.202 vs State Of H.P, (Cr. MMO No. 141 of 2020).

 

Brief facts of the case:

The facts of the matter are that on October 8, 2019, respondent No. 2 (petitioner No. 1’s wife) married petitioner No. 1 in accordance with Hindu Rites and rituals. After some time, the petitioners began to mistreat respondent No. 2 for her meagre dowry and began to treat her cruelly. In response to the testimony of the second respondent, the police filed a FIR against the petitioners. Now that the parties have reached a solution, she no longer want to prosecute the matter against the petitioners; hence, the petitioner has sought the High Court.

As the parties have reached a settlement, the petitioner’s actions and the FIR/Challan should be quashed and dismissed, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has contended that the offence is not compoundable, hence the petition may be denied.

 

JUDGEMNET:

Tuesday, the Himachal Pradesh High Court cancelled a FIR under IPC Section 498A, noting that even if the trial is permitted to continue, there are slim odds of conviction to achieve the objectives of justice because the parties had reached a compromise.

While considering the Petition, the Court noted that the Supreme Court in the case of B.Sc. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, held that Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing if quashing of the FIR becomes necessary for securing the ends of justice. It is well-established that the section 482 powers are limitless. Obviously, the more the power, the greater the need for extreme care and prudence while employing such powers.

In Preeti Gupta et al. v. State of Jharkhand et al., (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Supreme Court stated that the ultimate purpose of justice is to discover the truth, punish the guilty, and protect the innocent. Also typical is the inclination to implicate the spouse and all of his immediate relatives. Even after the completion of a criminal trial, it is sometimes impossible to determine the truth. Long and drawn-out criminal cases have been shown to result in animosity, acrimony, and bitterness between the participants. The criminal trials cause tremendous misery for all those involved. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that allowing complainants to pursue their case would be an abuse of legal procedure, hence the complaint against the appellants was dismissed.

The High Court further cited the Supreme Court decision of Jitendra Raghuvanshi et al. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi et al., (2013) 4 SCC 58, in which the Supreme Court stated that criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint might be quashed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in appropriate instances to achieve the goals of justice. Even in non-compoundable offences involving marriage conflicts, if the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the disagreement peacefully and without coercion, the FIR, complaint, or subsequent criminal procedures might be cancelled in the interest of justice.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI

Click here to view your judgemnet

The High Court of Rajasthan, through learned judge, Justice Devendra Kachhawaha in the case of Ramdhan v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6918/2021) asked the Bar Council to take action against a lawyer who used filthy language and hurled abuses at court.

BRIEF FACTS:  While arguing the matter, learned counsel Shri R.S. Choudhary appearing on behalf of the petitioner through video conferencing used filthy language before this Court and argued the matter loudly and in a shouting manner which was against the decorum of the Court. He abused the Court which amounts to Contempt of Court. During the course of hearing of the bail application, it was brought to the notice of this Court that two other cases of similar nature were also pending against the accused-applicant and the investigation in the present matter was not completed, therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused-applicant, the Court expressed its opinion that, at present, the accused was not entitled to be released on bail and therefore, an option was given to the counsel for the petitioner either to get the matter adjourned or withdrew the bail application with the liberty to renew the prayer after filing of the chargesheet. At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramawatar Singh Choudhary inappropriately opened up passing unwelcoming comments upon the Court. His behaviour and demeanour was certainly of maligning the dignity and decorum of the Court. The Counsel deliberately and willfully uttered obnoxious and filthy language which was normally used by cheapsters and street goons.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT:   The court remarked that the overall conduct of the counsel had certainly put a dent over the constitutional and judicial basic structure. The conduct of the counsel diminished the mutual respect and relation between the Bar and the Bench. Although, the act of the counsel was certainly warranting initiation of contempt proceedings but instead thereof, a lenient view was taken by the court just to maintain judicial dignity and decorum of the Court.  Therefore, the court felt appropriate to bring such sorrow state of facts to the notice of the Bar Council of Rajasthan to take suitable actions against the counsel Mr. Ramawatar Singh Choudhary forthwith. The Registry was thereby directed to send a copy of this order to the Chairman/ Secretary, Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur to take appropriate actions against the counsel Mr. Ramawatar Singh Choudhary.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read Judgement