Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 15 to March 21, 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Default Bail : State Cannot Take Advantage Of Filing One Charge Sheet First And Seeking Time To File Supplementary Charge-sheets To Extend The Time Limit U/S 167(2)Case: Fakhrey Alam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [CrA 319 OF 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 165 The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy observed that the time period for investigation specified under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be extended by seeking to file supplementary charge sheet qua UAPA offences. The Court while granting default bail to Fakhrey Alam, a person accused under Section 18 of the UAPA Act, reiterated that default bail under first proviso of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a fundamental right and not merely a statutory right."We do not think that the State can take advantage of the fact that in one case there is one charge sheet and supplementary charge sheets are used to extend the time period in this manner by seeking to file the supplementary charge sheet qua the offences under the UAPA Act even beyond the period specified under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C beyond which default bail will be admissible, i.e., the period of 180 days. That period having expired and the charge sheet not having been filed qua those offences (albeit a supplementary charge sheet), we are of the view the appellant would be entitled to default bail in the aforesaid facts and circumstances.", the court said.2. Delay In Raising Juvenility Claim Is No Ground For Rejection Of Such A Claim: Supreme CourtCase: Ram Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 8633/2017]Citation : LL 2021 SC 172The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari observed that the delay in raising the claim of juvenility is no ground for rejection of such a claim. The court was considering an application filed by one Isha Charan who has been convicted along with others under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced with imprisonment for life in relation to an incident which took place on 30-11-1982."The plea of juvenility had possibly not been taken before the Trial Court as the trial was concluded and the applicant Isha Charan was convicted before the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was enacted. However, Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, defines a "juvenile" or "child" as a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. A person who was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence is entitled to the protection. The claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case as held by this Court in Abuzar Hossain @ Ghulam Hossain vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2012) 10 SCC 489. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility is no ground for rejection of such a claim. Similar view has been taken in numerous subsequent cases of this Court.", the court said.3. Criminal Proceedings Are Not For Realization Of Disputed Dues, Reiterates Supreme CourtCase: Manoj Kumar Sood Vs. State Of Jharkhand [ SLP (Crl) 1274/2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 171The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari reiterated that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. 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, and that too, without any trial, the bench observed.The bench also referred to Shyam Singh vs. State through CBI reported in (2006) 9 SCC 169, in which it was held that it is open to a Court to grant or refuse bail but to say that offence has been committed even at the stage of granting bail and to direct repayment of any amount is both onerous and unwarranted. 4. Factors Which May Not Be Relevant To Determine The Guilt Of Accused Can Be Considered At The Stage Of Sentencing: Supreme CourtCase: K.Prakash vs. State of Karnataka [CrA 336 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 169The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy observed that factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt of the accused can be considered at the stage of sentencing.In this case, the accused were convicted under Sections 344 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly conspiring with the other accused to kidnap a minor girl. They were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 344, IPC and a fine of Rs.2000/- and S.I. for two years for the offence under Section 366, IPC and a fine of Rs.5000/-. As the Karnataka High Court dismissed their appeals, they approached the Apex Court."Many factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt, must be seen with a human approach, at the stage of sentencing. While imposing the sentence, all relevant factors are to be considered, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of each case.", the bench said.5. Impart Gender Sensitization Training To Judges; Include Such...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 15 to March 21, 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 15 to March 21, 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers