bail Archives - Prime Legal

8 Sep

Gujarat High Court states the purpose of the bail is not punitive but rather preventive accused is charged under Sections 406, 114 of the Penal Code, 1860, and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Atrocity Act

Prime Legal

Blog bail

TITLE – Babubhai Shamjibhai Ramani Versus State of Gujarat

Decided On August 29, 2023

1862 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Hasmukh

INTRODUCTION-

Currently filed appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes challenging the judgement and order dated 2 filed by the current appellant under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking regular bail in connection with a FIR being registered with Savarkundla Rural Police Station, District: Amreli for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 3(1)(r).

FACTS OF THE CASE

The current appellant was detained on March 21, 2023, and his bail application was ultimately denied by the learned Special Judge and 4 Additional Sessions Judge in Savarkundla.

Expert lawyer Mr. Vashishta M. Joshi claims that he has been given permission by the legal aid to speak on behalf of the original complainant and that he will file his Vakalatnama right away. He is given the go-ahead to show up, and Registry is told to accept his Vakalatnama. The appellant was not a part of the crime in any way, and even if she had been, the investigation would have turned up nothing necessary, served no purpose, and would have taken a long time to complete.

As soon as the coaccused is released by the Sessions Court, the learned attorney for the appellant pleaded that he is ready and willing to comply with any conditions this Court may impose. Therefore, he has also asked for the benefit of parity, and the appellant must be expanded on regular bail by placing appropriate terms and conditions on it.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Contrarily, a knowledgeable APP representing the respondent – The state has vehemently opposed the current appeal and demanded that the appellant’s conduct also be recovered. He has listed the instances in which the appellant has been charged with crimes and has acted inappropriately around law enforcement. Additionally, he claimed that the appellant is the subject of exterment proceedings and that four offences have been recorded. Additionally, it is claimed that the current appeal must be dismissed in light of the appellant’s criminal history. There is nothing left to recover and discover from the appellant now that the investigation is over and a charge sheet has been filed. The purpose of the bail is not punitive but rather preventive because it is clear that the trial will take some time. Keeping the appellant in jail while the case is pending is preferable to a pre-trial conviction and even otherwise, given the principles of personal liberty.

Bail granted

“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- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgment

23 Aug

Delhi High Court Denies Bail in 498A/306 IPC Case Citing Extramarital Affair and Mental Torture

Prime Legal

Blog #baildenied, #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #husband, bail

Title: SAGAR Vs THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT)

Decided on: 11th August, 2023

+ BAIL APPLN. 1968/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently rejected a bail application in a case involving offenses under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty towards a married woman) and 306 (abetment of suicide). The decision was based on specific allegations against the applicant, including his extramarital affair and mental and physical torture of the deceased wife. The court emphasized the devastating impact of discovering infidelity shortly after marriage on the victim’s emotional well-being.

Facts

The case revolved around the marriage between the deceased, Panina, and the accused applicant. Tragically, Panina took her own life just 13 days after their marriage, leading to the filing of an FIR by her father. The FIR alleged that the applicant had engaged in an extramarital affair and was responsible for Panina’s suicide.

Analysis

The applicant’s counsel argued for his innocence, claiming a harmonious relationship between the couple after marriage. They pointed out the absence of a suicide note or dowry demand as evidence supporting their case. On the other hand, the State’s counsel argued that the allegations were grave, underscoring Panina’s mental distress resulting from the applicant’s extramarital affair, substantiated by witness testimonies.

The Court carefully considered both arguments, evaluating the available evidence. Notably, specific allegations against the applicant, including his extramarital affair and the mental and physical torture of Panina, were found to be credible. These allegations were supported by Panina’s mother’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

The Court acknowledged the severe emotional trauma that discovering infidelity shortly after marriage can inflict on an individual. In this case, it was alleged that Panina’s suicide was a direct consequence of her husband’s actions. The absence of dowry demands was a significant factor in the analysis.

Held

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that there were no grounds for granting bail at this stage. The emotional trauma experienced by Panina due to her husband’s alleged infidelity and subsequent ill-treatment was considered a critical factor. Given these circumstances, the bail application was dismissed.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision highlights the seriousness with which cases involving cruelty towards married women and abetment of suicide are treated, especially when specific allegations, such as extramarital affairs and mental torture, are involved. The court’s focus on the emotional well-being of the victim and the profound impact of such revelations underscores the need for responsible and compassionate handling of such cases.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgement

17 Aug

Allahabad HC Denies Bail To 19 Y/O ‘Lashkar-e-Taiba Associate’ Accused Of Promoting Arms Acquisition Through WhatsApp

Prime Legal

Blog #allahabad, #allahabadhighcourt, bail

CASE TITLE: Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 7241 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 09.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

INTRODUCTION

Last week, the Allahabad High Court declined to grant bail to a 19-year-old individual who was reportedly linked to the ‘Lashkar-e-Taiba’ group. The person had been apprehended by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) of the Uttar Pradesh Police the previous year on charges of disseminating animosity, advocating sentiments against India, and assisting in the procurement of weapons through WhatsApp groups.

In light of the accusations directed at the individual named Inamul Haq, also known as Inamul Imtiyaz, Justice Pankaj Bhatia’s panel noted that even though the freedom to practice and promote religion is safeguarded by Article 19, the nature of the allegations outlined in the First Information Report (FIR) indicates that the accused cannot be considered exempt from the provisions of the second part of Section 121-A IPC.

FACTS

Reportedly, the First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the accused under Sections 121-A and 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66 of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The accusations revolved around his alleged creation of a WhatsApp group where he shared literature with potential jihadi connotations and uploaded videos of a similar nature.

The FIR also detailed that the individual in question confessed to aspiring to become a jihadi and acknowledged his affiliation with the Lashkar group. According to the FIR, he claimed to have maintained a WhatsApp group for approximately 15-16 years, comprising 181 members, including 170 from Pakistan, 3 from Afghanistan, and 1 each from Malaysia, Bangladesh, and India. Furthermore, he was accused of actively promoting arms acquisition and propagating the group’s ideology based on religious biases.

In his bid for bail, the accused approached the High Court, with his representative (Advocate Shivam Yadav) contending that the allegations in the FIR did not prima facie establish his involvement under Section 121-A IPC. It was argued that he had been in custody since March 14, 2022, and the offenses attributed to him were punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. Conversely, the state’s legal representative opposed his bail application, citing the allegations detailed in the FIR.

Against this context, the Court initially examined Section 121A IPC (Conspiracy to commit offenses punishable by section 121). The Court additionally observed that the accusations against the accused and the contents of the FIR indicated that he managed two WhatsApp groups primarily composed of foreign nationals. These groups were allegedly involved in promoting arms procurement and advancing the group’s agenda based on religious biases.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Given these charges leveled against the defendant, the Court determined that the accused cannot be deemed to have violated the second portion of Section 121-A IPC. As a result, due to the seriousness of the accusation, the Court concluded that there was no basis for approving bail, leading to the dismissal of the defendant’s bail plea.

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

8 Aug

75 year old accused under Sections 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, and 120B of the IPC granted bail due to evidence being entirely documentary and old age – Gujarat high court

Prime Legal

Blog #Gujarathighcourt, #ripenage, bail

TITLE: Raman Sreekumar v State of Gujarat

Decided On-: 04/08/2023

21621 of 2022

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Ilesh vora

INTRODUCTION- The applicant-accused seeks regular bail in connection with a FIR that relates to offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code by this subsequent bail application submitted under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Special Investigating Team (SIT) was established by the Gujarat Government following the 2002 riots in the Gujarat Region. After SIT submitted its closure report to the Magisterial Court, it was contested by filing a Criminal Revision Application with the High Court of Gujarat.

Gujarat, and upon confirmation of the learned court’s ruling, the same was rejected.Against which, Special Magistrate an application for leave was submitted to the Supreme Court. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition

the Supreme Court on In accordance withthe aforementioned observations made by the Supreme CourtA FIR was filed against one Sanjiv Bhatt,

The applicant in this case, R.B. Shreekumar, and Ms.Setalvad Teesta.

According to the prosecution, the accused and others conspired to abuse the legal system by creating false evidence to convict multiple defendants of crimes punishable by the death penalty. By doing so, they violated Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code. Further allegations include that the accused filed false and malicious criminal charges against innocent people with the intent to harm them and had prepared false records in order to carry out the alleged conspiracy. The applicant was taken into custody

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The applicant’s knowledgeable attorney has stated that the accused, Ms. Teesta Setalvad, has been considered and granted bail by the Apex Court. The Apex Court noted that, while granting the bail, the entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence, and that evidence is in the custody of the Investigating Agency. Therefore, taking into account the filing of the chargesheet, she is entitled to the bail. He would also argue that the applicant is a retired IPS officer who is currently around 75 years old and has age-related illnesses. He would also contend that the applicant has complied with the terms of the interim bail and that nothing has occurred during that time, so keeping the applicant in custody would be ineffective since further custody is not required and the trial would take a long time.

In contrast, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued against Mr. Mitesh Amin’s assertions that the applicant is guilty of the alleged crime and that there is prima-facie evidence against him. As a result, the court is unable to exercise its discretion regarding the applicant’s role in this case or the evidence used to prove the charge.

This Court believes that the case is entirely supported by documentary evidence, which is currently in the custody of the investigating agency. The applicant, who is around 75 years old and has age-related illnesses, has no allegations that he abused his freedom during the interim bail

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement-

27 Jul

Delhi High Court released the petitioner on bail in the case under NDPS act and held that trial is likely to take time, thus cannot be kept in prison for long.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt, #highcourtdelhi, #NDPS, bail, Blog, Prime Legal

Title: ANITA @ KALLO versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Date of decision: 18th July, 2023

+ BAIL APPLN. 957/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

Introduction

Delhi High Court released the petitioner on bail in the case under NDPS act and held that trial is likely to take time, thus cannot be kept in prison for long. It also took note that quantity seized from co-accused cannot be clubbed with the petitioner thus rigours of section 37 of NDPS Act would not apply.

Facts of the case

The petitioner is requesting regular bail in FIR No. 256/2022, filed at Police Station Crime Branch in Delhi, under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS).

The petitioner’s attorney claims that the disclosure statement of co-accused Shahban was the reason for the petitioner’s detention at the age of roughly 37. It is also claimed that the petitioner’s person contained just 89 grammes of heroin.

Even though the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report is still pending, the chargesheet has already been submitted.

Analysis of the court

In the current instance, 89 grammes of heroin were recovered from the petitioner, which is an intermediate rather than a commercial quantity. The recovery from the petitioner cannot be combined with the recovery from the co-accused, according to the ruling in Anita v. State (NCT of Delhi). As a result, in my opinion, the facts and circumstances of the current case do not meet the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioners cannot be detained for an endless amount of time in light of the aforementioned reasons and the likelihood that the trial would drag out. As a result, the court finds it appropriate to give the petitioners bail.

the petition is granted, and the petitioner is instructed to be freed upon submitting a personal bond for Rs. 50,000 along with one surety for the same value, subject to the pleasure of the Trial Court.

Written By Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement

1 2 3