Category Archives: Blog

The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that such a piece of information even at this point of time would cast doubt on the accuracy of the actual age of the victim girl. Such was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh in the matter of Shri. Akramuz Zaman Vs. State of Meghalaya & 2 Ors [AB. No. 12 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were associated with the applicant praying under section 438 Cr.P.C for pre-arrest bail in connection with Tura Women P.S Case No. 46(06)2021 under Section 3 (a)/4 of the POCSO Act. It was alleged by the Informant that the applicant had sexually assaulted one minor girl. On the other hand, the applicant stated that he was in a mutual relationship with the alleged victim girl for a few months and this relationship was accepted by the parents of the said victim girl. It was alleged by the applicant that the victim was not a minor and her birth certificates and other government-issued certificates stated her d.o.b to be 07.01.2002. At the time of filing the FIR, she was more than 19 years and therefore she’s an adult and there was no bar for her to enter into a marital relationship on her own accord. 

The counsel, Mr. A.H. Hazarika representing contended that the father and family of the victim had no objection to the relationship between the victim and the accused/applicant thereby, the said complaint is not correct. Moreover, it was submitted by the applicant’s counsel that the alleged victim was pregnant for about 3 months, the family of the girl were not objecting to the said union instead only some NGOs were against inter-caste marriage and were objecting to the same. The AAG, Mr. B. Bhattacharjee submitted that the documents annexed by the applicant relating to the age of the victim girl had to be carefully scrutinised in the factual and circumstantial context, inasmuch as, such documents should not be questionable. 

The Hon’ble Court considering all the facts and submissions stated that “In view of the above, this Court has no option but to reject this instant application under the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is found not tenable at this juncture. The interim bail granted is hereby discharged. This matter is hereby disposed of accordingly.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

The basis of Preventive Detention is the satisfaction of the Executive of a reasonable probability of detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts, and preventing him by detention from so doing as upheld by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh through the learned bench lead by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in the case of Mushtaq Hajam v. Union Territory of J&K and ors. (WP (Crl) no.151/2020)

The brief facts of the case are that Order, passed by District Magistrate, Budgam, placing one, Mushtaq Hajam, (for short “detenu”) under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the preservation of forest wealth and directing his lodgement in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal Jail, Jammu is being challenged. Respondents have filed Reply Affidavit, in which it is stated that detenu is involved in timber smuggling by cutting green trees, instigating his associates to adopt the same trade and transporting the illicit material to Payeen belt. The detenu has been found involved in Case FIR Nos.55/2019, 60/2020 and 69/2020 registered at Police Station, Chadoora.

The Hon’ble High Court held, “It is relevant to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court while dealing with the question of preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, in the case of Prakash Chandra Mohan v. Commissioner, 1986 Cr.L.J. 786. The Supreme Court observed that it must be remembered that observance of written law about the procedural safeguards for protection of individual is normally the high duty of public official but in all circumstances not the highest. The law of self-preservation and protection of the country and national security may claim in certain circumstances higher priority. For the reasons discussed above, the instant writ petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with connected CM(s).”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

While considering the application for bail, it is necessary to take into consideration, first whether the accused would take up the trial without hampering it and secondly, whether he would subject himself to the verdict of the Court as upheld by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh through the learned bench lead by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in the case of Bashir Ahmad Bhat v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Bail App no.96/2020).

The brief facts of the case are that on 12.01.1996, police station Pulwama received an information that at village Pishwara Keegam, some unknown gunmen entered into the house of one, Gh. Mohammad Sheikh, and locked all the family members in a single room, fired indiscriminately upon them with their illegally occupied arms/ ammunition with an intention to kill them and as a result whereof, Dr. Ab. Rashid Sheikh and Gh. Nabi Sheikh, got killed on spot while as one girl, namely, Mst Benazir, received bullet injuries, and the gunmen fled from the spot. On receipt of information, case FIR under Sections 452, 302, 307, 120-B RPC, 25/27 IA Act was registered. It is also stated by respondent that during course of investigation, the dead bodies were taken into custody and after completion of all formalities, the bodies were handed over to their legal heirs for last rites and the injured girl was taken by her legal heirs to hospital for treatment and regarding her injury memo was prepared. It is also submitted that during investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and evidence collected, and the identity of gunmen was ascertained. The order impugned, on its perusal, reveals that it has been passed by the Trial Court after making comprehensive discussion. The Trial Court has said that applicant cannot seek and be given bail on parity because he is not similarly situated with the other accused persons.

The Hon’ble High Court held, “From perusal of the record on the file as also application, no definite view can be made that there are reasonable grounds to believe that applicant is not guilty of alleged offences and no doubt applicant is facing trial for last five years but it is also a fact that he is facing trial for commission of offence of murder. In the above backdrop, the judgements relied upon by learned counsel for applicant do not render any help to the case of applicant as being distinguishable in facts and circumstances of the present case. Resultantly, order impugned does not warrant any interference. For the foregoing reasons, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Bail application/petition is accordingly, dismissed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

The Commissioner thoroughly justified in directing the furnishing of reports and their enclosures. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice NS Sanjay Gowda in the matter of The Public Information Officer and anr Vs. The First Appellate Authority and anr [W.P No. 18599/2021(GEM-RES)]. 

The facts of the case were associated with a Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 wherein the petitioner prayed for the records in the case dated 18.03.2021 on the file of Hon’ble Karnataka State Information Commissioner. The State Information Commissioner by the impugned order had directed the petitioners to transfer the B-report and enclosures which were sought by the respondents. It was stated that the 1st respondent’s son died due to jumping out of the window and the Authorities submitted that the son died due to overdrinking. Thereby, respondent 1 contended that the stigma was attached to his family by presenting the B-reports. It seemed to the commissioner that there was no prohibition to provide the information sought since the investigation was already completed.

Considering all the facts and submissions The Hon’ble Court ruled out that “ In my view, the commissioner was absolutely justified in directing furnishing of B-report and its enclosures as sought for by the respondents No.1 especially when the investigation in the matter had been concluded… Therefore, no grounds are made out to entertain this petition… Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

The evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P. C can be assessed and evaluated by the trial court at the time of framing of the charges and the same cannot be done in these proceedings as held bt he Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh through a learned bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar in the case of Jalal-Ud-Din Mir & Others Vs State Of J&K Through Sho P/S Sumbal [CRMC No.279/2017].

The brief facts of the case are that, according to the petitioners, a false and frivolous FIR for offences under Section 366, 376, 109 RPC came to be registered against them with Police Station, Sumbal, Sonawari, and after investigation of the case, a challan came to be presented against them before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sumbal. It is the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 had entered into wedlock with the prosecutrix on 30.05.2009 as per Muslim rites. A Nikah Nama and a marriage agreement was executed by petitioner No.1 and the prosecutrix, copies whereof have been placed on record. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 and the prosecutrix lived together as husband and wife for about two months but thereafter parents of the prosecutrix, being not happy with the marriage, lodged a false FIR against the petitioners. It is further alleged that the parents of the prosecutrix took away her custody from petitioner No.1 against her will and wish, whereafter she entered into a wedlock with another person.   

It is further averred in the petition that in her statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P. C after about two and a half months of registration of the case, the prosecutrix implicated the petitioner by speaking falsehood just to wreak vengeance upon them. According to the petitioners, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P. C does not inspire confidence and contents thereof sound preposterous and absurd. On these grounds, petitioners have sought quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against them on the basis of the challan laid before the trial court.

After hearing the parties and a perusal of the Statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P. C, The Hon’ble High Court stated that “From the aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she has implicated all the petitioners and has levelled allegations of kidnapping and rape against them. So far as the contention of petitioners that statement of the prosecutrix was recorded after two months of registration of FIR is concerned, the merits of the same cannot be determined in these proceedings. The evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P. C can be assessed and evaluated by the trial court at the time of framing of the charges and the same cannot be done in these proceedings. Similarly, the contention of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 had entered into wedlock with the prosecutrix cannot be gone into in these proceedings. The validity of the alleged marriage is a question which cannot be gone into in these proceedings.”   

Click here to read the Judgment                                                                                        

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj