Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: September 9 - September 15, 2024

Nominal Index:Yashpal Sharma & Ors. Vs Rupali Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 253Raman Kumar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 254Sheikh Owais Tariq Vs Satvir Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 255Bharat Bhushan Jolly and ors Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 256Rahees Hayat alias Ayaz Vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 257State through P/S Pulwama Vs Nazir Ahmad Rather 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 258 Aqib Ahmad Renzu Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 259Judgments/Orders:[Defamation] Application Claiming Exception Of 'Good Faith Accusation' Cannot Be Dismissed At Threshold, Requires Trial To Examine: J&K HCCase Title: Yashpal Sharma & Ors. Vs Rupali Sharma.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 253In a notable ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that the application of the Eighth Exception to Section 499 (Defamation) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) (pari materia to Sec 499 of IPC) involves the determination of factual issues that cannot be assessed at the threshold stage by the trial court or in a petition seeking quashing.Embargo On Bail In Death Or Life Imprisonment Cases Cannot Supersede Right To Speedy Trial: J&K High CourtCase Title: Raman Kumar Vs UT of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 254The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the embargo under the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting bail in cases punishable by death or life imprisonment cannot override the fundamental right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Granting bail to one Raman Kumar, the petitioner, who had been incarcerated for over 13 years without his trial being concluded a bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed, “While considering the bar for grant of bail in offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, a proper balance is required to be maintained to ensure that the right of the accused to Speedy Trial is not violated”. [S.138 NI Act] Complaint Is Maintainable Even If Cheque Is Dishonoured Due To 'Frozen Account': J&K High CourtCase Title: Sheikh Owais Tariq Vs Satvir SinghCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 255The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is maintainable even if a cheque is dishonoured with the reason 'Account Frozen'.Justice Rajnesh Oswal, hearing the matter, examined whether the complaint for dishonour of a cheque on the ground of 'Account Frozen' is maintainable under Section 138 of the Act.CrPC | Test Of Sufficiency Of Proof Not Applicable At Stage Of Framing Of Charge And Discharge Of Accused: J&K High CourtCase Title: Bharat Bhushan Jolly and ors Vs State of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 256The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed that the stringent tests regarding the sufficiency of proof, which are usually applied at the final stage of a case, are not applicable during the framing of charges or discharge of an accused.Habeas Corpus Petitions Can't Be Allowed To Become Infructuous Due To Pendency Outlasting Period Of Detention: J&K High CourtCase Title: Rahees Hayat alias Ayaz Vs Union Territory of Jammu & KashmirCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 257The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a habeas corpus writ petition cannot be dismissed solely because the period of preventive detention has expired during the pendency of the case. The court emphasized that allowing the petition to lapse on this ground would undermine the rule of law and suggest that personal liberty is restored merely by the passage of time, rather than through enforcing rights.Presumptions Under NDPS Act Are Rebuttable Not Absolute, Prosecution Must First Establish Prima Facie Case: J&K High CourtCase Title: State through P/S Pulwama Vs Nazir Ahmad RatherCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 258The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while upholding the acquittal of three individuals accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985 ruled that the presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act are rebuttable, not absolute.The court emphasised that the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case against the accused before the burden shifts to the defense.Bail In Criminal Cases No Justification For Preventive Detention: J&K High Court Quashes Detention Order Against Ex-SMC CorporatorCase Title: Aqib Ahmad Renzu Vs UT of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 259The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the preventive detention order issued against former Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) Corporator Aqib Ahmad Renzu.The court held that the mere fact that Renzu had been granted bail in multiple criminal cases did not justify his detention under preventive law. The court further emphasized that preventive detention laws cannot be used as a substitute for handling cases under regular criminal law.

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: September 9 - September 15, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags