Category Archives: Blog

The accused whether it is a male or female, they have to furnish all conditions and furnish personal bond for having anticipatory bail. This honorable judgement was passed in the case of Ganga Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh [Cr.MP(M) No.348 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

The petitioner filled the petition and approached the Court for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B, 107 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 06 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had post grant of anticipatory bail duly joined the investigation. The Learned Additional Advocate General, as of now no recovery etc. is to be affected from her.

The court opinioned that, “Taking into consideration these facts, this petition is allowed and order dated 23.02.2021, passed in FIR No. 06 of 2021, dated 18.01.2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B, 107 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 06 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., is made absolute The conditions for referring to bail was provided as Petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, within a period of two weeks from today. She shall make herself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; iii) She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. She shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and She shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court.”

The court disposed of the case stating that, “It is clarified that the findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.”

Click here to read the judgement-

The age as well as the entire facts and circumstances along with stage of the investigation of the petitioner, there isn’t any fruitful purpose going to be served by keeping the accused behind the bars. This honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Shimla in the case of Akhil Katoch Versus State of Himachal Pradesh [Cr.M.P. (M) No. 611 of 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

The petition was filed, wherein it was stated that petitioner after remaining in Police custody has been sent in judicial custody and since, he was in judicial custody. As per status report investigation was almost complete and challan after preparation had been checked by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and now it was to be presented in the Court after getting checked by District Attorney. The petitioner was registered under Sections 452, 323, 504, 364, 382, 325 and 34 IPC, in Police Station Palampur, District Kangra.

The court opinioned that, “Considering the entire facts and circumstances and stage of the investigation as well as age of the petitioner, it was found that no fruitful purpose is going to be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, therefore, petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail stating that The petitioner was registered under Sections 452, 323, 504, 364, 382, 325 and 34 IPC, in Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court within two weeks from today.”

The court disposed of the case stating the following conditions to be imposed that, “the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required; that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; that he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial; that he shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected; that he shall not misuse his liberty in any manner; that he shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police and/or during trial; he shall not leave India without permission of the Court.”

Click here to read the judgement-

The petitioner cannot be deprived of her right to be appointed on compassionate ground as the matter was delayed for 10 years from the respondent side. This auspicious judgment was passed by The High Court of Gauhati in the matter of Kilangsangla vs State of Nagaland and Ors [WP(C) 54/2020] by the Honourable Justice S. Hukato Swu.

The case of the petitioner is that her late father Imdongchujang died in harness while serving as S.A.A. The petitioner approached the respondents with a copy of the order passed by this Court and filed a representation. However, the petitioner was again denied appointment on the ground that she was not qualified to be appointed as a Grade-III employee the petitioner being so placed was of the view that as and when a vacancy arose, she would be considered for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme for the State Government employee who dies in harness in any other wing of the Social Welfare Department. The petitioner having received this negative reply from the State respondents has no option but to come again before this Court in a fresh writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are doubts about the state and answer provided by the respondents. The petitioner took measures to present RTI to the department concerned, and his RTI reply certainly indicates that during the time that the situation of the petitioner should be taken into consideration, the candidates were appointed on a compassionate basis. All the names shown in the reply to RTI demonstrate that in 2016 and 2017 the applicants were appointed on an active basis

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner’s case is being considered by the Department. She submits that the respondents are maintaining a petition concerning the compassionate appointment serially and their names are considered in turn on seniority as and when retirement occurs. She also submits that the Department is willing to consider the case of the petitioner as and when a vacancy arises.

The court relied on Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Others vs Banibrata Gosh and Others held that “Considering that the writ petition remained pending for 10 years and thereby, the respondent might now have become barred by age for fresh employment, we recommend that the Government may consider the condonation of the age bar, if any, on the part of the respondent. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and restore that of the learned Single Judge and allow the appeal but without any order as to costs.”

This Court is of the view that “the petitioner has made out a case for consideration of her case under the Office Memorandum for compassionate appointment scheme for State Government employees who die in harness. The matter having been dragged on for a considerable period of time, it is directed that in the event the vacancy arises and consideration for appointment of the petitioner’s application is examined, the respondents shall take recourse upon the Office Memorandum for relaxation of upper age limit in respect of the petitioner. The State is directed to examine the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as and when a vacancy arises.”

Click here for the Judgment

Illegal extraction of mines and minerals, without a requisite permit or in violation of the permit conditions, will amount to theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. This auspicious judgment was passed by THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA in the matter of Shybi. C.J vs. State of Kerala and others [WP(C).  No.10387 OF 2020(W)] by the Honourable Mr Justice V.G.Arun.

In this case, one Shybi CJ had filed a complaint before the Police alleging that the accused, in the guise of conducting a granite, quarry and crusher unit in the name and style “M/s.Four Star Granites Ltd”, is extracting granite far in excess of the permitted quantity and is thereby committing theft, which is an offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC. Aggrieved by inaction of the police, he approached the High Court by filing a writ petition.

Relying on a recent Supreme Court decision in Jayant vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that illegal extraction/exploitation of natural resources will amount to theft, punishable under Section 379 of IPC. He also referred to the judgment in Kanwar Pal Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh in which the Apex Court rejected the contention that, sand being an immovable property as per Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, its excavation will not constitute the offence of theft. It was held that, on being excavated, sand loses its attachment to the earth, ergo, it becomes movable property or goods capable of being stolen.

The court while disposing of the petition held that, “The precedents aforementioned leave no room for doubt that illegal extraction of granite, without a requisite permit or in violation of the permit conditions, will amount to theft.” The court directed the respondent is to take into consideration the complaint filed by the petitioner alleging that the accused is extracting granite in excess of the permitted quantity and take further take appropriate action thereon within two weeks.

Click here for the Judgment

Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who can exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. This was held in Ghulam Hassan Sofi & Anr. V. State of JK through VOK Kashmir [CRR No. 13/2017] in the High Court of Jammu And Kashmir at Shrinagar by single bench consisting of JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL.

Facts are that the petitioner was accused of offenses under section 5 (2) PC Act read with 109 RPC on the ground that the petitioner is in possession of disproportionate assets. The matter was heard before the learned trial court, who passed an order and directed further investigation.

The counsel for petitioner senior argued that the order of further investigation can be passed only when the new facts are brought to the notice of the trial court after the filing of charge-sheet and once the court had issued a process, direction for further investigation could not have been issued by the learned trial court under under section 156 Cr.P.C.

The court made reference to the Supreme Court judgement in Apex Court in the case titled Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, wherein the following observations were made, “To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offense till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed herein-above, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case.”

Considering the facts of the case and the earlier precedents the court held that, further investigation can be ordered suo-motu by the Magistrate himself depending upon the facts of each case. The magistrate can exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. As in the case the learned trial court has given the cogent reasons while ordering the further investigation, the same was held to be within the power of the court. Thus dismissing the petition.

Click here to read judgement