0
sc of india21

Supreme Court’s Firm Stance: Prioritizing Justice and Compliance in Bail Proceedings

Title: Gulab Singh vs State Of Haryana & Another

Citation: CRM-M-52639-2023

Corum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Decided on: 17.10.2023

Introduction:

This case appears to involve allegations of assault and threats made against Azad Singh’s father by a group of individuals including Sandeep Singh and the application for anticipatory bail for some of the co-accused is being discussed in the Co-ordinate bench. In this case Supreme Court made several key observations and issued a directions based on the circumstances.

Facts:

In this case, the FIR has been filed based on a statement given by Azad Singh, a resident of Ballu. Azad Singh and his elder uncle, Sh. Arjun Singh, were going to their fields in a buggy, following Azad’s father on a motorcycle for grass cutting. While they were near their field, a motor cycle and a car stopped in front of their fields and a group of individuals, including Sandeep Singh, Methab Singh, Lakha Singh and Gurlal Singh arrived at a scene. These individuals were armed with swords and sticks. The group of individuals began beating Azad Singh’s father. Azad Singh states that they had filed court cases against Sandeep Singh previously, resulting in a sentence for him. Sandeep Singh had been pressuring them to compromise on these cases.

Azad Singh alleges that the group of individuals including Sandeep Singh and people had wrongfully injured his father and seeks legal action against them. Regarding the anticipatory bail applications, it is mentioned that the second anticipatory bail applications of co-accused, Sukha Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, have been entertained by the Co-ordinate Bench, and interim protection has been granted in their cases on specific dates.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The case involves the petitioner filing an application for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s stance that the previous anticipatory might have been withdrawn instead of being considered onits merits. The principle of res judicata should not be applied to an application for bail. The Supreme Court concluded that the earlier order 07.03.2017 should be ser aside. The case would stand revived before the High Court and the matter would be listed for consideration on 03.04.2017 in accordance with the law.

The judgment emphasizes that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are entirely different. It accuses the petitioner of attempting to mislead the court by concealing the fact of an order dated 17.08.2022, which required the petitioner to surrender within a week. The petitioner had not complied with this order. The judgment also notes that the stay on proceedings before the trial court, granted under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was only issued on 28.10.2022. The court suggests that had the petitioner surrendered, they could have applied for regular bail, and the High Court might have directed the trial court to expeditiously consider the regular bail application within three days.

“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- Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

The police constable who faced charges of extortion got his bail application denied – Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Title: MOHIT BEDI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: CRM-M-39741-2023

Corum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Decided on: 17th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

 

Introduction:

Police constable, Mohit Bedi, accused of extortion from the accused Gopal Singh’ s wife, Maryam, filed bail application in Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the prime facie evidence are sufficient enough to hold the case against petitioner and the petitioner is a member of police personnel which constitutes the crime more serious.

Facts:

The petitioner, Mohit Bedi, who was a constable in Special Task Force of Punjab Police, was accused of extortion of Rs 10,00,000 from complainant (Maryam). Based on the complaint of Maryam, Police team from Vigilance Department have conducted a trap operation to arrest the petitioner and co-accused. The complainant presented Rs 2,00,000 i.e. advance amount of total bribe to Vigilance Team and the team have noted down the serial number of the currency and smeared them with phenolphthalein powder. Later, the complainant along with 2 shadow witnesses handed over the same currency amount to co-accused Aman. Aman, on receiving the amount, calculated it with his fingers and kept it in his drawer. The shadow witnesses have witnessed the same and gave signal to the vigilance Team. Vigilance Team, on getting the signal, raided co-accused Aman’s shop, recovered the amount and cross checked the serial number (which mostly matched), and dipped Aman’s fingers in sodium carbonated solution water. The water turned pink which indicated that Aman has used his fingers on the same currency notes.

Aman was taken into custody by Vigilance Team to Special Task Force office, Amritsar. During his custodial interrogation, Aman disclosed that Maryam told him (Aman) that her husband has been arrested by police and police has demanded the said amount from her. Aman also disclosed that Maryam’s husband, Gopal Singh, has contacted him through petitioner’s WhatsApp and asked for help and to settle the matter with police. After the recording of the statement, petitioner Mohit Bedi was arrested.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that cases of extortion are part of a severe crime. And the extortion done by a police personnel do not only degrades the position of the victim, but also deceives his colleagues. The petitioner knew about the illegal dealing of drugs by Gopal Singh and so wanted to have a piece of such a big cake. The evidence presented by Vigilance Team were sufficient enough prime facie accuse the petitioner.

Based on the above findings and observations by Hon’ble High Court, the bail petition was dismissed and the Interim orders was stand vacated. Also the bail bonds, if any, were cancelled.

“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- Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to remove stray dogs from the nearby areas of judicial complex and rehabilitate them

Title: Rav Pratap Singh v. Anurag Aggarwal & Ors.

Decided on: 12.10.2023

Citation: COCP-1121-2017 (O&M) COCP-1182-2017 (O&M)

Coram: Arvind Singh Sangwan

Introduction

The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to take prompt action in the matter of the menace created by stray dogs. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan gave direction to Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to remove the stray dogs from the nearby areas of the Judicial Complex, where the residences of the Judicial Officers are situated and rehabilitate the stray dogs at the outskirts of the city, which is less populated area with immediate effect.

Facts of the Case

The Court preponed the petitions on receiving a complaint given by Mr. Phalit Sharma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambala, from the District and Sessions Judge, Ambala. Mr. Phalit Sharma in his complaint highlighted the menace created by stray dogs in residential areas where various judicial officers and general public are residing. He further stated in the complaint that he has been attacked twice by the stray dogs and other officers and public have also faced similar attacks from the dogs. Even the people commuting by two wheelers are facing such horrifying experiences.

The Complaint further stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala is paying no heed to the requests made by Mr. Phalit Sharma to follow the directions passed by Hon’ble High Court concerning checking stray dog menace. The complaint also quoted several judicial pronouncements regarding stray dogs wherein Hon’ble Apex Court can be seen equally concerned about Stray Dog Menace.

Hence, Mr. Phalit Sharma through this complaint seeks intervention of the High Court in order to compel the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to take appropriate action to curb the menace of stray dogs.

Court’s observation and analysis

The Counsel, appearing for the state of Haryana submitted that the Urban Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Ambala has invited e-Tenders for the sterilization and vaccination of the stray dogs in Ambala. However, the High Court was of the view that the said action is not immediate and effective in nature. There is a need to grant relief to the judicial officers urgently.

Therefore, the High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to immediately look into the matter and remove the stray dogs from the nearby areas of the Judicial Complex, where the residences of the Judicial Officers are situated and rehabilitate the stray dogs at the outskirts of the city, which is less populated area.

Further, the Counsel, appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, submitted that Byelaws have been framed and it has been put to the House for approval, wherein it has been proposed that six breeds, i.e. American Bull Dog, American Pitbull, Bull Terrier, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Rottweiler, and all of their cross breeds will not be permitted to be kept in residential area in any manner.

 Conclusion

The rights of human beings cannot be compromised in the name of compassion for animals. This principle was aptly applied by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the present case wherein the Court ensured protection to the residents by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala to take prompt action to curb the menace of stray dogs. Every individual is entitled to live in a safe and sound environment and it is the duty of the authorities to ensure the same.

“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- Amrita Rout

Click here to read judgement

 

 

 

0

The legal consensus is that executive orders cannot be implemented retroactively- Punjab high court

TITLE: Kissan Rice Mills V State of Punjab

Decided On-: July 24, 2023

CWP-473-2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jasijth Singh Bedi

INTRODUCTION- By filing this petition pursuant to Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner is requesting the reversal of two orders: one in which the petitioner’s appeal was denied, and the other in which the director reduced the mill’s installed capacity.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 2007, the petitioner built a rice mill. Guidelines dated 10.09.2007 regarding the calculation of rice mill capacity were in effect at that time. Based on directives the respondent determined the petitioner’s capacity. The mill’s 4 MT capacity was established. The fifth of the five parameters used to calculate a mill’s capacity is land. The instructions stated that the land might be leased close to the mill or owned by the owner of the mill. From 2007 to 2020, the petitioner’s capacity was assessed as 4 MT; however, in response to the complaint, the respondent reduced the petitioner’s rice mill’s capacity from 4 MT to 2 MT by order dated September 26, 2022  This Court limited the petitioner’s options to an appeal. A week after the petitioner appears before the relevant authority, the appellate authority was instructed to make a decision. When the petitioner appeared before the appellate authority, the appeal was ultimately dismissed by the order in question.

 COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Knowledgeable counsel for the petitioner asserts that the rice mill was installed in 2007 in accordance with the regulations in force at the time. The petitioner was required to have 3.5 acres of land, which could either be leased or owned by the owners or partners, according to the instructions. By means of instructions dated 20.08.2010, which were provided, the instructions were changed in 2010 to specify that land should be owned by the owner or a partner and should not be leased. The capacity of the petitioner’s mill could not have been reevaluated by the respondent because the instructions were changed but not retroactively.

counsel for the respondents claims that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected due to parameters changed by instructions dated 20.08.2010 as well as due to the petitioner’s lack of the necessary plant and machinery. Because the State has the authority to amend its rules, the petitioner was obligated to follow the new rules.

The contested order regarding the land question is quashed in light of the aforementioned discussion and conclusions, but the parties are instructed to conduct a joint inspection of the machinery and plant. The respondents have four weeks from today to conduct a joint inspection. The respondent must swiftly pass a new order regarding capacity after completing physical verification.

“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 judgemnet

0

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

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

“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

 

1 2 3 4