Supreme Court Criminal Law Digest 2021 [Part 1- CrPC-IPC-Evidence ]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973On Bail and Anticipatory Bail [Section 436- 439 CrPC]An Accused Who Was Released On Default Bail Cannot Be Re-arrested On Filing Of Charge Sheet[Case: Kamlesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 8]A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Navin Sinha and Indu Malhotra held that an accused who was released on default bail cannot be re-arrested on filing of charge-sheet by police. Reliance was placed on Bashir v. State of Haryana [(1977) 4 SCC 410] wherein it was held that it is open to the prosecution to file an application for cancellation of bail on the grounds known to law and the receipt of the charge sheet in Court can by itself be no ground for cancellation of bail.Manipal Fraud Case: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Former Employee Sandeep Gururaj[Case: Sandeep Gururaj v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 24]A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy granted bail to Sandeep Gururaj, Former Deputy General Manager of Manipal Education and Medical Group (MEMG), accused of siphoning off funds (reportedly 62 Crores) from the company accounts. It noted that the instant case is not one of public money being involved but monies of the concerned corporate entities.Criminal Court Exercising Bail Jurisdiction Is Not Expected To Act As Recovery Agent To Realize Dues Of Complainant: Supreme Court[Case: Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 31]A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna observed that a criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant. It observed thus while setting aside a condition imposed by Madhya Pradesh High Court on an accused while granting him anticipatory bail.Supreme Court Grants Bail To Kannada Actress Ragini Dwivedi In Sandalwood Drug Case[Case: Ragini Dwivedi @ Gini @ Rags v. State Of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 38]A Bench headed by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman granted bail to Kannada actor Ragini Dwivedi, who had been arrested by the police for allegedly consuming and supplying drugs at parties and events organized by her and others, and set aside a Karnataka High Court order wherein her bail plea was dismissed. The Bench noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act had been wrongly invoked by the Sessions Court and the High Court.High Court Exercising Bail Jurisdiction Cannot Pass Directions Which Will Have Direct Bearing Upon Trial: Supreme Court[Case: Prashant Dagajirao Patil v. Vaibhav @ Sonu Arun Pawar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 39]A bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed that a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction, cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial. It observed thus while setting aside a direction of the High Court in a case, in which it directed the Investigating Officer to examine a CCTV footage and to submit a report.Successive Anticipatory Bail Applications Ought Not To Be Entertained On Specious Ground Of 'Changed Circumstances': Supreme Court[Case: GR Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu; Citation: LL 2021 SC 48]A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari observed that successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained. It said, "As a matter of fact, successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. The specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge."Violation Of Fundamental Right To Speedy Trial Is A Ground For Constitutional Court To Grant Bail In UAPA Cases: Supreme Court[Case: Union of India v. KA Najeeb; Citation: LL 2021 SC 56]A bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose held that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on ground of violation of Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial. It held, "Whereas at commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence."Whether Day Of Remand Is To Be Included For Considering A Claim For Default Bail? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench[Case: Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 118]A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noticed that, in State of MP v. Rustom & Ors.1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 221 , Ravi Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2015) 8 SCC 340...

Supreme Court Criminal Law Digest 2021 [Part 1- CrPC-IPC-Evidence ]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags