bail Archives - Page 6 of 8

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

“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 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

25 Jul

No tolerance when addressing the bail requests of cyber thugs in cybercrime cases.- Punjab high court

Prime Legal

Blog #punjabhighcourt, bail

TITLE: Gurmeet Singh v State of Punjab

Decided On-:21.07.2023

CRM-M-46621-2022

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Anoop Chitkara

INTRODUCTION- The petitioner had come before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner, who was facing arrest in the FIR referred to above, was accused of locating candidates who could successfully complete the online examination for the recruitment of Police Sub Inspectors in the State of Punjab. In a ruling dated April 10, 2023, this court had approved temporary bail.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The prosecution’s claim is that on September 16, 2021, the SHO of Police Station Anaaj Mandi in Patiala secretly learned that online tests for hiring various departments were being held at a centre run by Infra IT Solutions, Zila Parishad. The computers have been breached by Complex, Patiala, and a few hackers.

The source added. stated that one candidate, Gurpreet Singh, received the highest marks in the August 2021 Sub Inspector recruitment exam. He took the exam at the Infra IT Solutions testing facility. It was further stated that Gurpreet Singh did not receive his high marks on the basis of merit but rather as a result of a group of cybercriminals hacking computer centres and someone else remotely answering his question paper.

While conducting their investigation, they detained the aforementioned candidate Gurpreet Singh and continued to detain numerous other suspects. Ankit, one of the arrested suspects, informed the investigator of the petitioner’s involvement on September 22, 2021. He added that the petitioner used to register candidates for exams at the testing location.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Additionally, the State’s attorney claimed that, in accordance with the court’s observations, the police are still looking into the case and have obtained prima facie evidence of numerous communications and transactions between the petitioner and other accused persons linking his involvement with the aforementioned offence. The Deputy Superintendent of Police stated in an affidavit that they wanted the custodial investigation to know the roles of other people involved in the recruitment scams, including the beneficiaries, and that this scam had already halted the recruitment for Sub Inspectors.

this Court is not considering the evidence qua disclosure statement, but the evidence collected after such disclosure statements which point out three relevant facts:-

The petitioner had worked with the said centre.
(ii) After Jasvir Kumar left the centre, the petitioner had worked there.
(iii) There are various communications between the petitioner and other accused which the petitioner had failed to explain

Counsel relied on various ruling while submitting his arguments.

The Executive is responsible for making sure that software used to handle such sensitive information is secure, error-proof, and that its code was written with today’s exponential technological advancements in mind. They are also responsible for preventing hackers from abusing artificial intelligence. In the case of cybercrime, there can be no leniency when handling the bail requests of cyberthugs. Cybercriminals must be dealt with harshly, and incarceration interrogation of these cyberthugs in such sensitive matters is necessary not only to reveal the involvement of other people but also to identify the weakness in the systems to thwart future breaches.

Petition dismissed

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

21 Jul

It would be against Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Ac for the petitioners to be held any longer. – Haryana high court

Prime Legal

Blog #haryanahighcourt, bail

TITLE: Rajpal v State of Haryana

Decided On-:22.5.2023

CRR-1850-2022 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jasjith Singh Bedi

INTRODUCTION- The current revision petition was filed in opposition to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, order dated August 31, 2022, which denied the applicant’s request for default regular bail.Registered under Sections 20, 25 of the NDPS, 1985, petitioner under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The case’s brief facts state that while the police party was on patrol, a tip was received that Mani Ram son of Rajender, Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh, and Vishal son of Hoshiar Singh were behind the wheel of a black Tata Harrier car through the village while carrying a large amount of charas. If the road from Panchi Jattan to Rajpur was barricaded, the three accused could be found and arrested along with the car. A report was written and sent to the Police Station Ganaur in this regard based on the information. After some time, the police team noticed the suspicious car leaving Panchi Jattan’s side as they were doing vehicle checks. It came to an end. Two little boys got out of the car. One young child was seated in the driver’s seat, and another fled the area. The driver was identified as Rajpal @ Billu (petitioner) son of Sube Singh by the arrested youths as Rajender’s son Mani Ram. Vishal was the young man who fled. The recovery of 1 kg 800 gms of charas from the car’s dash board was then accomplished.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The petitioner’s learned attorney claims that since the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for the grant of default bail had only been denied because the deadline for presenting a challan had been extended by 90 days, the petitioner was now entitled to the grant of default bail because the said order extending the deadline for presenting a challan by 90 days had been overturned by this Court in CRR1907-2022, decided on 16.05.2023.

The learned State attorney does not contest the fact that the petitioner was qualified for the award of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. because the order granting the delay for presenting the challan has been reversed.

The hon’ble court has heard both arguments submitted by the parties with their particular reliance on various judgments, hence has made a conclusion stating According to Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, an accused person has an unassailable right to be granted bail since the investigating agency failed to provide the report required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. within the allotted time. In the present instance, the investigating agency filed a request for an extension in order to get more time for presenting the report required by Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the absence of the FSL report. An order dated August 2, 2012, granted a 90-day extension. However, the abovementioned ruling was revoked by this Court in an order dated May 16, 2023 that was issued in CRR-1907-2022.

Therefore, the continued detention of the petitioners would be in violation of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act once this Court has ruled that the grant of an extension of 90 days in the presentation of the challan itself is unlawful.

Bail granted

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

18 Jul

Delhi High Court granted bail to the petitioner who was imprisoned for more than seventy days.

Prime Legal

Blog # Supreme Court, #CrPc, #delhihighcourt, #HighCourt, #highcourtdelhi, #primelegal, bail, Blog, Prime Legal, Section420

Title: Prabhakar Reddy vs State of Delhi (Govt. of NCT)

Date of decision: 13th July, 2023

+ BAIL APPLN. 2025/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

Introduction

The complaint of Mr. Vivek Rana, an authorised representative of DMI Finance Private Limited (hence “complainant company”), which asserted that M/s P dot G Constructions Private Limited violated the law, led to the registration of the current FIR.

Through its directors, who included the petitioner and his wife, [hereinafter “borrower company”], obtained a loan from the complainant business for Rs. 35,000,000/- according to a first-term loan agreement dated August 18, 2015. On January 27, 2017, the parties additionally agreed to a Second Term Loan Agreement, under the provisions of which an additional sum of Rs. 17,00,000 was approved.

The parties signed a Memorandum of Settlement on January 3, 2017, which was exchanged. According to the terms of the agreement, the borrower firm allocated the complaint company the receivables from a number of identified sold units as well as rights to a number of identified unsold flats.

The lawsuit claims that the accused individuals shifted title and control of several residences that were allocated to the complainant without the complainant’s knowledge. Additionally, it is claimed that the loan money was misappropriated and utilised for other projects, resulting in the complainant’s unlawful loss of Rs. 52,000,000.

The borrower company’s forensic audit report, which was acquired from Brahmayya & Co. Chartered Accountants, showed that bank and cash receipts recorded in the internal Cash Relationship Management data of the borrower company were not accounted for in the books of accounts. The inquiry also showed that the defendants personally took the money from the different house buyers and used it for their own or other initiatives. The inquiry revealed that the accused individuals misappropriated the receivables and failed to deposit them in the Escrow Account in violation of the terms and conditions of the assignment agreement with the lenders.

By rulings dated May 26, 2023, and June 2, 2023, respectively, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge both rejected the petitioner’s bail requests.

Analysis of the court

The petitioner’s primary domicile is in Chennai, and he solely does business there. The investigating authorities have already taken the petitioner’s passport. The petitioner is therefore unlikely to elude justice. Additionally, the petitioner is no longer a director of the borrower firm, making it less likely that she would tamper with the evidence or sway any witnesses.

When the investigation against the petitioner is already finished and a chargesheet has been filed, granting bail based only on the fact that the petitioner’s wife is the subject of the inquiry is inadmissible. At this point, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 (Refer para 21-22 & 42), may be cited.

It would not be wise to imprison the petitioner indefinitely in light of the extract above, the likelihood that the trial in the matter will take some time, and the assurance given on behalf of the petitioner that he will continue to cooperate in the investigation qua his wife as well. The petitioner has already been detained for seventy days.

Due to the aforementioned factors, this Court determines that the petitioner should be granted bail in the current instance. The petitioner is therefore ordered to be freed in exchange for a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 and one surety in an amount equal to that, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and additionally subject to conditions.

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view judgement

1 … 4 5 6 7 8