Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Supreme Court Monthly Criminal Digest July 2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
5 Aug 2022 2:40 PM GMT
Supreme Court Monthly Criminal Digest July 2022
x

Bail - Economic Offences - The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another - It is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. (Para 66) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Bail - The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails. (Para 72-73(a)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 138 - Anticipatory Bail - Adverse order against third party by High Court in an anticipatory bail proceedings - It is a peremptory direction affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the direction goes to the very livelihood of the appellant. It has also civil consequences for the appellant. Such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified. Kanchan Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 640

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Limb of Article 21 - A duty is enjoined upon the agency to complete the investigation within the time prescribed and a failure would enable the release of the accused. The right enshrined is an absolute and indefeasible one, inuring to the benefit of suspect. Such a right cannot be taken away even during any unforeseen circumstances. (Para 34) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 170 - Scope and ambit. (Para 36) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - Issuing a warrant may be an exception in which case the Magistrate will have to give reasons. (Para 37) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 209 - Power of the Magistrate to remand a person into custody during or until the conclusion of the trial - Since the power is to be exercised by the Magistrate on a case-to-case basis, it is his wisdom in either remanding an accused or granting bail. (Para 38) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 226 - Before the Court proceeds to frame the charge against the accused, the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to give a fair idea to the Court as regards the case of the prosecution - Over a period of time, this provision has gone, in oblivion - It permits the prosecution to make the first impression regards a case, one which might be difficult to dispel. In not insisting upon its right under Section 226 of the CrPC, the prosecution would be doing itself a disfavour. (Para 20, 15) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227-228 - Cause of death of the deceased as assigned in the post mortem report being the "cardio respiratory failure" - Whether Trial Court could have discharged the accused from offence of murder - At the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record - Whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part II, IPC could have been decided by the trial court only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence, if any, comes on record. (Para 31) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - The prosecution case is necessarily limited by the charge. It forms the foundation of the trial which starts with it and the accused can justifiably concentrate on meeting the subject­ matter of the charge against him. He need not cross ­examine witnesses with regard to offences he is not charged with nor need he give any evidence in defence in respect of such charges - Where a higher charge is not framed for which there is evidence, the accused is entitled to assume that he is called upon to defend himself only with regard to the lesser offence for which he has been charged. It is not necessary then for him to meet evidence relating to the offences with which he has not been charged. He is merely to answer the charge as framed. The Code does not require him to meet all evidence led by prosecution. He has only to rebut evidence bearing on the charge. (Para 32) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - The purpose of framing a charge is to intimate to the accused the clear, unambiguous and precise nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial - Scope of Court's powers in respect of the framing of charges - Referred to Dipakbhai Jagdishchndra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547 et al - The trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC, the Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. (Para 21-27) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228 - There is an inbuilt element of presumption - Meaning of 'presumption'. (Para 28) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 309 - Bail - While it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail. (Para 41) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 31 - Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has full discretion to order the sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences. (Para 10-11) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 374 (2) - Already admitted appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed on the ground that the accused is absconding. (Para 8) Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 374 (2) - Patna HC dismissed an appeal filed against conviction on the ground that appellant accused was absconding - Allowing appeal, Supreme Court observed: The anguish expressed by the Division Bench about the brazen action of the appellant of absconding and defeating the administration of justice can be well understood. However, that is no ground to dismiss an appeal against conviction, which was already admitted for final hearing, for non-prosecution without adverting to merits -The impugned judgment set aside and the appeal remanded to the High Court for consideration on merits. Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. (Para 8) Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 386 (e) - Power to make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper would be available, of course in appropriate cases falling under any of the four categories of appeals mentioned under clauses (a) to (d) - The twin provisos under clause (d) carry restrictions in the matter of exercise of power under clause (e), with respect to enhancement of sentence and infliction of punishment - The power thereunder can be exercised only in rare cases. (Para 18) Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 386 (e) - Rape convict kept in prison beyond the period of sentence - When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment - Compensation to the tune of Rs.7.5 Lakhs to be paid by the State holding that it is vicariously liable for the act/omission committed by its officers in the course of employment. Bhola Kumhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - "Presumption of innocence" and "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" may not be available to the appellant who has suffered a conviction - The power exercisable under Section 389 is different from that of the one either under Section 437 or under Section 439 of the Code, pending trial- Delay in taking up the main appeal or revision coupled with the benefit conferred under Section 436A of the Code among other factors ought to be considered for a favourable release on bail. (Para 42-44) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397 - The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 CrPC vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well­ founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case - While considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. (Para 8-9) Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41 - Power of Arrest - Police officers have a duty to apply their mind to the case before them and ensure that the condition(s) in Section 41 are met before they conduct an arrest - Supreme Court reiterates the guidelines for arrest laid down in the 2014 Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273. [Para 27, 28] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41 - Scope - Even for a cognizable offense, an arrest is not mandatory as can be seen from the mandate of this provision. (Para 21 -23) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41(1)(b)(i) and (ii) - Notwithstanding the existence of a reason to believe qua a police officer, the satisfaction for the need to arrest shall also be present - Both the elements of 'reason to believe' and 'satisfaction qua an arrest' are mandated and accordingly are to be recorded by the police officer. (Para 27) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 428 - Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence or imprisonment - it cannot be lost sight that when reference is made in a set off for adjustment of periods, the reference is to proceedings within the country - the criminal law of the land does not have any extra-territorial application - thus, what happens in another country for some other trial, some other detention, in our view, would not be relevant for the purposes of the proceedings in the country - accused cannot claim a double benefit under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C - i.e., the same period being counted as part of the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the former offence and also being set off against the period of imprisonment imposed for committing the latter offence as well. [Para 50, 52] Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - Section 436A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigor as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. (Para 64) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - The word 'shall' clearly denotes the mandatory compliance of this provision - There is not even a need for a bail application in a case of this nature particularly when the reasons for delay are not attributable against the accused - While taking a decision the public prosecutor is to be heard, and the court, if it is of the view that there is a need for continued detention longer than one-half of the said period, has to do so. However, such an exercise of power is expected to be undertaken sparingly being an exception to the general rule. (Para 47) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A - The word 'trial' will have to be given an expanded meaning particularly when an appeal or admission is pending - In a case where an appeal is pending for a longer time, to bring it under Section 436A, the period of incarceration in all forms will have to be reckoned, and so also for the revision. (Para 46) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - Scope - The jurisdictional Magistrate who otherwise has the jurisdiction to try a criminal case which provides for a maximum punishment of either life or death sentence, has got ample jurisdiction to consider the release on bail. (Para 53-55, 58) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437, 439 - The first proviso to Section 437 facilitates a court to conditionally release on bail an accused if he is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm - This has to be applied while considering release on bail either by the Court of Sessions or the High Court, as the case may be. (Para 58) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail Jurisdiction - cannot implead third party to proceedings - especially those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under consideration - application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to the cause of the concerned applicant, applying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with offence already registered against him and apprehending his arrest in connection with such a case for extraneous reasons or otherwise - in such proceedings, the inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant and applicable to the concerned applicant who has come before the Court - no attempt should be made to inquire into matters pertaining to some third party much less beyond the scope of the complaint/FIR in question - even if the application is entertained by the High Court, the High Court should exercise circumspection in dealing with the application only in respect of matters which are relevant to decide the application and not to over-state facts or other matters unrelated to the applicant before the Court. Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Appeal against High Court order that granted anticipatory bail on the ground that no recovery was effected from the accused and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused - Allowed -The respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Cancellation of Bail - Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances - Illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled :- a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record. b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim. c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail. d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified. g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case. (Para 30-34) Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Principles governing grant of bail - There is prima facie need to indicate reasons particularly in cases of grant or denial of bail where the accused is charged with a serious offence. The sound reasoning in a particular case is a reassurance that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker after considering all the relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (Para 19-29) Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439(2) - Bail conditions -The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed. [Para 29] Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 440 - It is a mandatory duty of the court to take into consideration the circumstances of the case and satisfy itself that it is not excessive. Imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of the release. In this connection, we would only say that Section 436, 437, 438 and 439 of the Code are to be read in consonance. Reasonableness of the bond and surety is something which the court has to keep in mind whenever the same is insisted upon, and therefore while exercising the power under Section 88 of the Code also the said factum has to be kept in mind. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 45 - Expert Witness - A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court. (Para 29) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Crimes like murder, rape, burglary, dacoity and even abetment to commit suicide are neither private nor civil in nature - In no circumstances can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against society. (Para 38) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - An FIR under Section 306 IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else - Section 306 IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. (Para 50) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - No mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered. (Para 7) State of U.P. v. Akhil Sharda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Scope and powers of High Court discussed - The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. In what cases power to quash an FIR or a criminal complaint or criminal proceedings upon compromise can be exercised, would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 26-37) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The Criminal Proceeding cannot be quashed only because there is a settlement (including monetary settlement) between the accused and the complainant and other relatives of the deceased to the exclusion of the hapless widow of the deceased. (Para 50) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The High Court has the inherent power to recall a judgment and/or order which was without jurisdiction or a judgment and/or order passed without hearing a person prejudicially affected by the judgment and/or order. (Para 22) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 87-88 - Courts will have to adopt the procedure in issuing summons first, thereafter a bailable warrant, and then a non-bailable warrant may be issued- Issuing non-bailable warrants as a matter of course without due application of mind against the tenor of the provision. (Para 31-32) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 35 - The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can be said to be at par with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in so far as the powers to be exercised under the Cr.PC are concerned - The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in addition, may have administrative powers. (Para 10-10.1) R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 634

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 227-228, 239-240, 245 - The case may be a sessions case, a warrant case, or a summons case, the point is that a prima facie case must be made out before a charge can be framed. (Para 19) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 41, 41A - The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail - The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 - Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action - State Governments and the Union Territories to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code. (Para 73 (b-d)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 437, 439 - Bail - Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application. (Para 73 (k)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 439, 161 - Bail - Statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 440, 436A - Undertrials - The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release- While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind - An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court. (Para 73 (h-j)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 88, 170, 204 and 209 - There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. (Para 73 (e)) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Criminal Investigation and Trial - In case of grave and serious non compoundable offences which impact society, the informant and/or complainant only has the right of hearing, to the extent of ensuring that justice is done by conviction and punishment of the offender. An informant has no right in law to withdraw the complaint of a non-compoundable offence of a grave, serious and/or heinous nature, which impacts society. (Para 39) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Criminal Trial - Post Mortem Report - The post mortem report of the doctor is his previous statement based on his examination of the dead body. It is not substantive evidence. The doctor's statement in court is alone the substantive evidence - It can be used only to corroborate his statement under Section 157, or to refresh his memory under Section 159, or to contradict his statement in the witness box under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 29) Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 631

Criminal Trial - Presumption of Innocence - Onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt before the Court -The agency to satisfy the Court that the arrest made was warranted and enlargement on bail is to be denied - Presumption of innocence, being a facet of Article 21, shall inure to the benefit of the accused. (Para 13-18) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Criminal Trial - Test Identification Parade - When no TIP was conducted the first version of the complainant reflected in the FIR would play an important role - It is required to be considered whether in the FIR and/or in the first version the eye­ witness either disclosed the identity and/or description of the accused on the basis of which he can recollect at the time of deposition and identify the accused for the first time in the Court Room - It would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court. (Para 6.2 - 6.7) Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582

Criminal Trial - The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission - Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604

Evidence Act, 1872 - Ocular Evidence - Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case - In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. (Para 27-28) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872 - When we deal with a case of circumstantial evidence, as aforesaid, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence. (Para 13) Ravi Sharma v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 615

Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act - (1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; (2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave informations and (4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible - Two conditions for application – (1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. (Para 42) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He might have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it. (Para 45-46) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - The conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Act, cannot form the basis of conviction. (Para 50) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8, 27 - Even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama the conduct would be relevant under Section 8 of the Act. The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27. (Para 48) Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Guidelines with respect to preliminary evaluation - appropriate and specific guidelines in this regard are required to be put in place - it open for the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, 2015. [Para 87] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Proviso to Section 15 read as mandatory condition - for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts - where the Board is not comprising of a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the expression "may" in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form and the Board would be obliged to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts - however, in case the Board comprises of at least one such member, who has been a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board may take such assistance as may be considered proper by it; and in case the Board chooses not to take such assistance, it would be required of the Board to state specific reasons therefor. [Para 76] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Preliminary assessment on four aspects - mental capacity to commit the offence; physical capacity to commit the offence; ability to understand the consequences of the offence; and circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed. [Para 62] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - preliminary assessment requires holistic evaluation. [Para 65, 66] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Ability to understand the consequences of the offence - The language used in section 15 is "the ability to understand the consequences of the offence" - the expression used is in plurality i.e., "consequences" of the offence and, therefore, would not just be confined to the immediate consequence of the offence but impact/consequences for other people connected with the victim and the child and other far-reaching consequences in the future - This evaluation of 'mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences' of the child in conflict with law can, in no way, be relegated to the status of a perfunctory and a routine task. [Para 68, 69, 70, 71, 75] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 - Mental Capacity to commit offence and ability to understand the consequences of offence are different -The Board and the Children's Court apparently were of the view that the mental capacity and the ability to understand the consequences of the offence were one and the same, that is to say that if the child had the mental capacity to commit the offence, then he automatically had the capacity to understand the consequences of the offence. This, in our considered opinion, is a grave error committed by them. [Para 67] Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - The expression "reasonable grounds" used in Section 37(1)(b) under NDPS Act would mean credible, plausible grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. (Para 14) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Bail considerations - The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Para 17-18) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - Bail - The admissions made by the accused while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside - Confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 16) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - At the stage of examining an application for bail in the context of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty. The Court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence under the NDPS Act or not. The entire exercise that the Court is expected to undertake at this stage is for the limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus, the focus is on the availability of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences that he has been charged with and he is unlikely to commit an offence under the Act while on bail. (Para 15) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37 - NCB's appeal against Delhi HC order granting bail to accused - Allowed - Even dehors the confessional statements, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the accused - The observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage - Set aside Bail order. Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 27A, 37 - When applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is seriously questionable in this case and there being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply. (Para 16.4) State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 27A, 37 - Appeal against Calcutta High Court order granted bail to a person accused under Sections 21(b)/29/27A of NDPS Act - Dismissed - No reason to consider interference in the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent with specific conditions. State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - As the explanation to Section 121A of the IPC discloses, for an offence of conspiracy, it would not be necessary that any act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance thereof. Thus, even though no untoward incident had actually of the IPC, the matter would still come within the four corners of Section 121A of the IPC. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - Conspiracy to wage war against India - The dictionary meaning of the expression "overawe" is to subdue or inhibit with a sense of awe. The expression "overawe" would thus imply creation of apprehension or situation of alarm and as rightly held by the Division Bench (in the case of Mir Hasan Khan v. State (or Ramanand v. State), it would not be necessary that the danger should be one of assassination of or of bodily injury to the members of the machinery or apparatus of the Government but the danger might as well be to public property or to the safety of members of the general public. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 121A - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of four persons for causing the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru in December, 2005. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590

Penal Code 1860; Section 221 - "charge" not defined under Cr.P.C. - a false "charge" in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning - would include a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion - the expression "falsely charges" in this section, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial - "to falsely charge" must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion - the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial - the false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings - in other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made - the statement in order to constitute the "charges" should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. [Para 91, 94] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Penal Code 1860; Section 221 - Essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence; the complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person, this complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. [Para 90] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Penal Code 1860; Section 376(2)(n) - Offence of committing repeated rape on same woman - The complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship - Now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC - Observations while granting anticipatory bail to accused. Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 304 Part II - Conviction of appellants modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II - Considerations relevant for determining a culpable homicide amounting to murder and distinguishing it from the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 17) Ajmal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 609

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Abetment to commit suicide - Even an indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. (Para 16) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ECIR vis-a-vis FIR - there is no need to formally register ECIR - ECIR is internal document - there is not requirement in law to furnish copy of ECIR to accused - non-recording of ECIR does not prevent the authorities from proceeding with inquiry/investigation for attachment - it is sufficient if at the time of arrest the person is informed the grounds on which the arrest is being made; sufficient compliance of A 22(1) of the Constitution; the Court before whom the accused is produced can call ED officers for relevant records. [Para 176-179] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - ED Manual - is internal document and in the nature of administrative orders - common public may not be entitled to access such confidential administrative instructions for internal guidance of ED - there is no investigation but inquiry akin to civil action of attachment - since the inquiry ends in identifying the offender and then they are prosecuted, Authorities can considered outlining some crucial procedures and explore the feasibility of placing document on official website of ED. [Para 180-181] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Schedule of 2002 Act - classification or grouping of offences for treating the same as relevant for constituting offence of money- laundering is a matter of legislative policy. [Para 175-175A] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of powers of Enforcement Directorate for arrest, search and seizure, attachment - Court upholds the constitutionality of reverse burden of proof (Section 24) and twin conditions of bail (Section 45). Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 17 - Searches and Seizures - 2002 Act is a self contained code - inbuilt safeguards present - only Director and officers not below the rank of Deputy Director can authorise officers to carry out search and seizure - provision to record reasons shows it requires application of mind - officer conducting search is to forward a copy of the reasons recorded and materials in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope - officer seizing property obligated to submit application before the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days for retention of record - officers carrying out search and seizure made accountable; can be punished under Section 62 - process of searches and seizure is not only for inquiry into the process of money-laundering, but also prevention - for strengthening mechanism Parliament has rightfully dropped the condition that no search shall be conducted unless there is a police report or a private complaint in relation to the scheduled offence. [Para 77-86] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 18 - Search of persons - officers to adhere to identical inbuilt safeguards as in exercise of power under Section 17 - search of person is a fair and reasonable procedure (search and seizure) - search to be carried out in presence of two witnesses - officers to prepare a list of record of seized property - search of a female person can be done only by a female - upon seizing property concerned office to submit application before Adjudicating Authority - opportunity to be given to concerned person to defend their property. [Para 87] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - Arrest - inbuilt stringent safeguards - power to arrest on high-ranking officers - provision to record reason regarding involvement in money-laundering - grounds of arrest to be informed to the person at the time of making arrest - copy of order along with material to be sent to Adjudicating Authority - arrested person is required to be procedure in Special Court within 24 hours of arrest. [Para 88-90] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 24 - Burden of Proof - application not limited to proceedings before Special Court - to apply to proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority regarding confirmation of provisional attachment order and order of confiscation vesting the attached property in the Central Government - would also apply to proceedings before Special Court upon presentation of complaint by officer under Section 44(1)(b) - before the Adjudicating Authority it is not necessary to follow proof beyond reasonable doubt, but would apply before the Special Court - on establishing that there exists proceeds of crime and the person in involved/linked in any process or activity connected with such proceeds, a legal presumption would arise that the proceeds of crime are involved in money -laundering - the onus merely shifts on the person facing charges to rebut the legal presumption - the presumption under Section 24(b) is not a mandatory legal presumption; but presumption under Section 24(a) is. [Para 91-103] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - offence of "money laundering" - widely worded; meant not only to investigate offence but also regulate it - involved in any process or activity with the proceeds of crime - including concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting/claiming tainted money to be untainted - all these processes or activities independently constitute offence of money laundering - projection/claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted is not the only process or activity which constitutes offence of money laundering - "and" proceeding "projection or claiming" is to be read as "or" - Explanation added by Finance Bill, 2019 - 2019 amendment to Section 3 is only clarificatory in nature - whether brought in by way of a Finance Bill or not would not affect the original main provision - relevant date under the Statute is not linked to the date on which the scheduled offence was committed, but the one on which the person indulged in the "process or activity" connect with proceeds of crime - authorised officers can prosecute for money laundering only when there exists proceeds of crime - authorised officers cannot proceed to attach and confiscate property on the basis of assumption but on the basis of credible evidence indicating involvement in "process or activity" with proceeds of crime. [Para 37-55] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 44(1)(a) - Special Courts -an offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed - Section 44(1)(a) is directory in nature - it is read down to mean that the Special Court may exercise judicial discretion on case-to-case basis. [Para 104-114] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - Bail - Post Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (held Section 45 pre- 2018 Amendment as unconstitutional) the provision was not obliterated from the statute book; it merely held that the provision as it stood then was violative of A. 14 and 21 - it was open for the Parliament to cure the defect - once cured, the provision got revived - observations in Nikesh distinguishing the challenge to twin bail condition under PMLA from Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab dealing with TADA Act (calling PMLA less heinous than terrorism) overruled - twin condition though strict does not impose absolute restraint on garnet of bail - similar twin conditions is provided in several other special legislations - the twin bail conditions is also applicable for anticipatory bail - Section 436A CrPC providing maximum period for which under-trial prisoner can be detained, could be invoked by person accused under 2002 Act. [Para 115-149] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 5 - Attachment, adjudication and confiscation - inbuilt safeguards provided - only Director and officers not below rank of Deputy Director can issue provisional attachment order - only upon satisfaction that the person possesses proceeds of crime; is charged with commission of scheduled offence; there is likelihood of concealment, can the officer proceed to issue provisional attachment order - provisional order operates for 180 days - On issuing order of provisional attachment copy of the order to be forward to Adjudicating Authority - officer passing such order to forward copy of order to Adjudicating Authority - officer to file complaint within 30 days of the order - 2015 amendment has rightfully removed the requirement of registering scheduled offence and also show substantial progress in investigation to pass provisional attachment order - if scheduled offence is not registered with local police it is open to ED officers to proceed with provisional attachment while contemporaneously sending information to the police. [Para 56-70] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 50 - Summoning Power - the officers under the act conducts inquiry to ascertain existence of proceeds of crime and involvement of persons in money-laundering - PMLA is not a penal statute - Section 45(1A) clarifies that regular police officer cannot take cognisance of offence of money laundering - provisions of CrPC and Evidence Act does not apply to the inquiry carried out by the ED officers - it is a sui generis legislation, not only dealing with the prevention, detection, attachment, confiscation, vesting and making it obligatory for the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to comply with certain essential formalities and make them accountable for failure thereof, and also permits prosecution of the persons found involved in the money- laundering activity - ED officers are not police officers - statement recorded by them cannot be hit by Articles 20(3) and 21. [Para 150-173] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 63 - Punishment for willfully providing false information causing arrest or search - not an unreasonable provision. [Para 174] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 8 - In the period between the confirmation of provisional attachment under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the passing of the formal order of confiscation, the person interested in the immovable property can enjoy it - direction under Section 8(4) to take possession of the property before a formal order of confiscation is passed, merely on the basis of confirmation of provisional attachment order, should be an exception and not a rule - FAFT permits non-conviction based confiscation model. [Para 71-76] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Appeal against HC order that granted bail to POCSO Accused who allegedly raped and murdered his 11 year old daughter - Allowed - Ex facie, the allegations are grave, the punishment is severe and it cannot be said that there are no materials on record at all - Order set aside. Indresh Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Words and Phrases - Bail - A bail is nothing but a surety inclusive of a personal bond from the accused. It means the release of an accused person either by the orders of the Court or by the police or by the Investigating Agency. It is a set of pre-trial restrictions imposed on a suspect while enabling any interference in the judicial process. Thus, it is a conditional release on the solemn undertaking by the suspect that he would cooperate both with the investigation and the trial - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. (Para 8-12) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577

Words and Phrases - Trial - An extended meaning has to be given to this word for the purpose of enlargement on bail to include, the stage of investigation and thereafter - Primary considerations would obviously be different between these two stages. In the former stage, an arrest followed by a police custody may be warranted for a thorough investigation, while in the latter what matters substantially is the proceedings before the Court in the form of a trial. If we keep the above distinction in mind, the consequence to be drawn is for a more favourable consideration towards enlargement when investigation is completed, of course, among other factors - An appeal or revision shall also be construed as a facet of trial when it comes to the consideration of bail on suspension of sentence. (Para 7) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577


Next Story