bail Archives - Prime Legal

25 Jun

SUPREME COURT GIVES ACTIVIST MAHESH RAUT INTERIM BAIL IN THE BHIMA-KOREGAON CASE.

Articles, Blog, News & Media links, Supreme Court #Arrests #Trial, #BHIMA-KOREGAONCASE, #bombayhighcourt, #InterimRelease, #JudicialCustody, #JUSTICE, #legalnews, #LegalPost, #NIA, #SupremeCourt, bail

Mahesh Raut, an activist and one of the defendants in the Bhima-Koregaon case, was recently granted interim release by the Supreme Court for two weeks so that he could attend rites when his grandmother passed away.

Raut was granted temporary bail by a vacation bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti from June 26 to July 10.The bench mandated Raut’s unconditional surrender on July 10. It further stated that the Special NIA court’s terms and conditions will apply to the interim bail.

“Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the length of Raut’s previous incarceration, and the nature of the request, we are inclined to give interim bail of two weeks to the applicant, which may begin on June 26 and expire on July 10. The NIA Special Court will specify the conditions of release. NIA may ask the trial court to set strict requirements. The judgement from the highest court said that the petitioner must surrender on July 10.

The 33-year-old Raut’s request for temporary release was rejected by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Raut’s attorney informed the supreme court on the final day of the trial that he was pleading for an interim release so he could go to Gadchiroli to attend funeral rites following the passing of his grandmother.

The Bombay High Court’s September 21 ruling allowing Raut, who was detained in June 2018 and is now being held in judicial custody at the Taloja jail, bail was challenged by NIA, and the supreme court granted the stay. Prosecution claims that comments made during the gathering, which was reportedly sponsored by the CPI(M), a banned terror organisation, were provocative and inflammatory, and that this ultimately resulted in violence in Koregaon Bhima hamlet, close to Pune, in 2018.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

24 Jun

HIGH COURT’S DECISION TO RESERVE IS DEEMED “UNUSUAL” BY THE SC, WHICH ADJOURNS ARVIND KEJRIWAL’S CASE AGAINST STAY ON BAIL.

Prime Legal

Blog, Delhi High Court, News & Media links, Supreme court # Supreme Court, #ArvindKejriwal, #delhihighcourt, #JUSTICE, #law, #Legal News, #LegalPost, #LiqourPolicyScam, #primelegal, bail

In his appeal against the Delhi High Court’s suspension of his bail, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal sought quick relief from the Supreme Court on Monday, but the court denied him. Although the High Court’s conduct was seen somewhat “unusual,” a vacation bench consisting of Justices SVN Bhatti and Manoj Mishra decided to postpone the case until June 26.

Orders in stay applications are often not reserved. They are immediately passed. It is quite peculiar. Judge Mishra stated, “Anyway, we will have it day after tomorrow,” as the bench opted to hold off until the High Court issued an order.

Kejriwal was given regular bail in the Liquor Policy Scam Case by the Delhi High Court, which had granted a stay of the lower court’s ruling. His attorneys contended today that the High Court disregarded the established rule that there is a distinction between “bail granted” and “bail declined” while granting the stay, calling the action “unprecedented.”

A bail grant is not the same as a bail reversal. On the first day, there is a new method for staying bail. In my advantage is the convenience balance. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi stated during the arguments that “if the plea is denied, he goes back to jail and ends up back where he was when he surrendered under Supreme Court order three weeks ago.”

He further claimed that the challenged decision was given without any justification, and it is after the order that arguments were heard while noting that once bail is granted. It is not so simply undone.

“We suggest that the HC order be entered into the record so that we can continue the matter the following week. The court asked, “How do we proceed without the order?” as it deferred the case and declined to comment on the merits.

WRITTEN BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

20 Jun

Minor’s Aunt Challenges Pune Police in High Court Over Detention in Porsche Crash Case

Prime Legal

Blog #accident, #BOMBAY HIGH COURT, #Juvenile Justice Act, #writ, bail

Update –

In the Pune Porsche car crash case, a paternal aunt of the minor accused has petitioned the Bombay High Court, alleged the illegality of the teenager’s detention and requested his prompt release. Presently, the boy is held at an observation home in Pune.

Key Aspects –

In a habeas corpus plea filed with the Bombay High Court, the petitioner, a paternal aunt of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche car crash case, has alleged that she was compelled to take legal action against the Pune Police. She accuses them of abusing legal processes and disregarding the rule of law in their handling of her nephew’s case. The petition challenges what it describes as the arbitrary and illegal detention of the minor, who is classified as a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

According to the petitioner, the detention order issued by the Juvenile Justice Board in Pune violates provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The plea seeks the immediate release of the minor into the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner argues that despite allegations that the CCL was driving under the influence of alcohol during the accident, it should be considered an unfortunate incident involving a minor.

Furthermore, the petitioner points out that the FIR filed by Pune Police lists offenses under sections 304A (causing death by negligence), 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 427 (mischief causing damage to property) of the Indian Penal Code, along with relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. These offenses are all bailable, indicating that, in the petitioner’s view, the severity of the charges does not justify the continued detention of the minor.

The petitioner asserts that the actions of the Pune Police are illegal and that the continued detention of the CCL under the remand order is unjustified. The plea aims to secure the immediate release of the minor into the care of the petitioner, emphasizing the need to uphold the rights and protections afforded under juvenile justice laws.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Anurag Das

20 Jun

Judicial Transparency and Bail Procedures: Lessons from the Supreme Court’s Ruling

Prime Legal

Blog, Supreme court #criminallaw, #JUSTICE, #legalcase, #slp, #SupremeCourt, bail

Case Title – Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha

Case No. – Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2024

Dated on – 19^th January, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal

Facts of the Case –

The appellant was arrested on 03.02.2022 for his alleged involvement in a case under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, related to the possession and transportation of 23.8 kg of Ganja. Following his arrest, his initial bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, on 04.02.2022. He subsequently filed a bail application (BLAPL No. 1855 of 2022) before the High Court, assigned to Judge ‘A’, which was also denied on 06.03.2023. During this period, his co-accused, Gangesh Kumar Thakur, successfully obtained bail on 17.01.2023 from Judge ‘B’.

Following the High Court’s denial, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court on 21.07.2023. While the SLP was pending, the appellant filed a second bail application, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 15.09.2023. Unaware of the SLP, the appellant filed another bail application before the High Court, which was granted on 11.10.2023 by Judge ‘B’.

On 06.12.2023, the appellant’s counsel informed the Supreme Court of the High Court’s recent bail order. The Supreme Court noted omissions in the High Court’s order regarding the appellant’s first bail application and the pending SLP. Consequently, the Supreme Court requested records and explanations from the involved parties, revealing that the High Court was not apprised of the earlier bail rejection or the SLP. This led to procedural discrepancies highlighted in the Supreme Court’s subsequent directives for handling similar future cases.

Legal Provision –

Section 439 of CrPC, 1973

Contentions of the Appellant –

The appellant contended that his prolonged detention since 03.02.2022, in connection with the alleged possession and transportation of 23.8 kg of Ganja, warranted the grant of bail. He argued that the rejection of his initial bail application by the Sessions Judge and subsequently by the High Court (BLAPL No. 1855 of 2022) was unjust, especially in light of the fact that his co-accused, Gangesh Kumar Thakur, had been granted bail on 17.01.2023 under similar circumstances. The appellant maintained that the principle of parity should be applied to his case, entitling him to bail on the same grounds. Furthermore, he asserted that his second bail application, granted by the High Court on 11.10.2023, should stand, despite the procedural lapses in disclosing the pendency of his SLP before the Supreme Court and the rejection of his earlier bail application. He emphasized that the non-disclosure was not intentional and did not warrant the cancellation of his bail. The appellant sought relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that the continuation of his detention was disproportionate and unjustified, given the circumstances and the bail granted to his co-accused.

Contentions of the Respondent –

The respondent contended that the appellant’s bail should not be granted due to the serious nature of the allegations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically Section 20(b)(ii)(C). They argued that the appellant was in conscious possession of a substantial quantity of Ganja, demonstrating a prima facie case against him. The respondent highlighted that the appellant’s initial bail application had been rightly rejected by both the Sessions Judge and the High Court, underscoring that no new circumstances justified the reconsideration of bail. Moreover, they pointed out procedural irregularities, noting that the appellant failed to disclose the pendency of his Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court when filing the second bail application before the High Court. This omission misled the High Court into granting bail on 11.10.2023 without considering the prior rejection and ongoing SLP. The respondent also emphasized that granting bail under these circumstances would undermine judicial propriety and the due process, as it would reward the appellant’s failure to disclose critical information, thus setting a detrimental precedent. Consequently, the respondent urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appellant’s plea and uphold the legal process integrity.

Court Analysis and Judgement –

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on procedural integrity and judicial propriety in handling bail applications. The Court noted that the appellant had failed to disclose the pendency of his Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court while filing his second bail application before the High Court. This omission resulted in the High Court granting bail without being aware of the prior rejection and the ongoing SLP. The Court found that the appellant’s conduct in not disclosing critical information misled the judicial process, undermining the integrity and consistency of judicial proceedings.

The Court emphasized the importance of transparent and accurate disclosures in bail applications to avoid conflicting orders and ensure proper judicial review. It also reviewed the affidavit and reports from the Odisha Government and the High Court, which confirmed that the High Court was not informed about the pending SLP or the previous bail application dismissal. The Supreme Court underscored the necessity of listing subsequent bail applications before the same judge who decided the earlier applications, as per the Standing Order No. 2 of 2023 from the Orissa High Court.

While recognizing the procedural lapses and the appellant’s misleading actions, the Supreme Court chose not to cancel the granted bail but imposed a token cost of ₹10,000 on the appellant, payable to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the Orissa High Court within eight weeks. The Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, directing the High Courts to correct procedural systems to prevent such issues in the future. A copy of the judgment was ordered to be sent to all High Courts for appropriate action, and the original record was returned to the High Court.

Judgement Reviewed by – Anurag Das

Click here to read judgement

29 May

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Lower Court Order Grants Bail In Murder Conspiracy Case Involving SC/ST Act.

Prime Legal

Blog #karnatakaHc, #murder, bail

Case title: MANIKANTA @ MANI VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND SMT. PADMAVATHIYAMMA @ PADMAVATHI

Case no: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 258 OF 2024

Order on: 27th May, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

Fact of the case:

Manikanta @ Mani, the appellant, was accused in a criminal case involving the murder of Sri Renukumar. The incident occurred on May 25, 2023, when the deceased was assaulted by several individuals with long choppers, resulting in his death. The appellant, accused No. 7, was not present at the scene but was alleged to have conspired with other accused to kill the deceased. The charge sheet included serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act). The appellant was in judicial custody since his arrest on June 1, 2023, and his initial bail application was rejected by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Legal provisions:

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender.

Section 120(B): Punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act)

Section 3(1)(r): Punishment for intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

Section 3(1)(s): Punishment for abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.

Section 3(2)(v): Punishment for committing any offense under the IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Trib

Contentions of Appellant:

The appellant, Manikanta @ Mani, was not present at the crime scene when the assault and subsequent murder of the deceased occurred. The main accusation against him was of conspiracy, not of directly participating in the murder. The appellant argued for bail based on parity, as another co-accused (accused No. 8) with similar allegations had been granted bail by the court. The appellant contended that he should be treated similarly since his involvement was also limited to the conspiracy. The appellant’s counsel assured the court that the appellant would not tamper with evidence or threaten prosecution witnesses if released on bail.

Contentions of Respondents:

The respondent, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, highlighted that the appellant was charged with serious offenses, including murder (Section 302 of IPC), which are punishable by death or life imprisonment. The heinous nature of these crimes warranted a denial of bail. The respondent emphasized that the appellant had a criminal background as a rowdy sheeter at Mahadevapura Police Station. There was a substantial risk that he could tamper with evidence or threaten prosecution witnesses if released on bail. The prosecution maintained that there was strong evidence of the appellant’s involvement in the conspiracy to commit murder, which justified his continued detention.

Court Analysis & Judgement:

The court, after considering the arguments, noted that the appellant was not present at the scene of the crime when the assault and murder occurred. The actual assault was carried out by accused Nos. 1 to 3, while the appellant’s role was limited to conspiracy. The court recognized that accused No. 8, who was similarly accused of conspiracy, had already been granted bail. Based on the principle of parity, the court found that the appellant should be treated similarly and be granted bail. The court considered the conditions proposed to mitigate risks, including the execution of a personal bond, ensuring the appellant’s cooperation with the investigation, and his commitment not to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order dated November 27, 2023, which had denied bail to the appellant. The court ordered release on bail for certain conditions. The appellant must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. The appellant must not threaten the complainant or tamper with prosecution witnesses. The appellant must cooperate with the Investigating Officer in any further investigation. The appellant must appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates unless exempted and cooperate for the speedy disposal of the case. The appellant must not commit any offense during the pendency of the case against him.

By imposing these conditions, the court aimed to ensure that the appellant’s release on bail would not adversely affect the investigation or trial proceedings.

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh

1 2 3 … 10