Supreme Court of India Judgements

46500 Judgements hosted as on 04/06/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Bail Granted

BAIL GRANTED NDPS – PROLONGED INCARCERATION – It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

Bysclaw

Jun 9, 2024

It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-01-2024
in MCRC No. 50393/2023 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Indore)
ANKUR CHAUDHARY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 78978/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No. 78979/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 28-05-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
(VACATION BENCH)
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Akriti, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Yadav, AOR

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv.
Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi,, Adv.
Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Argha Roy, Adv.
Ms. Ojaswini Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Ruby, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The petitioner is in custody since last more than two
years in connection with FIR No. 305 of 2022 registered at
1
SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
Police Station­Chandan Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act” for brevity).
Previously, when the petitioner approached this Court,
vide order dated 15.5.2023, his bail petition was not
entertained. However, liberty was granted to approach the trial
Court for bail, after the examination of the panch witnesses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
panch witnesses viz., PW3 (Sunder Pal) and PW4 (Vinod
Rathore) have been examined and they have not supported the
case of prosecution. On being applied afresh, the trial Court
rejected his bail application only on the pretext that the
Investigation Officer may also be a panch witness who has yet
to examine. The High Court also rejected the bail application
affirming those findings by the impugned order.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentState submits that in the facts of this case, the Investigation
Officer may be treated as panch witness; therefore, the High
Court has rightly rejected the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have
2
SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
considered the facts and all attending circumstances including
the period of custody and also the previous orders where this
Court while rejecting the bail was of the view that after the
panch witness depose, fresh recourse may be taken.
Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not
supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we are not
inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch
witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within
a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates
against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional
liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section
37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be
considered.
In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this petition
and direct to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing the
suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and
conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court.
It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall regularly
attend the trial until exempted by the orders of the Court.
Violation, if any, may give a cause to take recourse as
3
SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
permissible and the trial Court would be at liberty to do the
needful.
Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing, this Special
Leave Petition stands allowed. Pending applications(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
4

By sclaw

Related Post

Bail Granted

Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Refuses To Extend Stay On Gautam Navlakha’s Bail, Says Trial May Take Years To Complete

May 26, 2024 sclaw
Bail Granted

Supreme Court Grants Bail To 2 Kerala Advocates Accused Of Raping Client

May 26, 2024 sclaw
Bail Granted

A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 19 – Arvind Kejriwal, the appellant, is challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement on 21.03.2024, which was upheld by the trial court and the High Court of Delhi – The case involves legal pleas concerning the scope and violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – The Court is considering granting interim bail to Kejriwal due to the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha General Elections and the importance of his participation as a political leader – The Court is taking a holistic view given the elections and Kejriwal’s role as Chief Minister and a national party leader, despite the serious accusations against him – The Court refers to case law on the power to grant interim bail and emphasizes the peculiarities of the case and the surrounding circumstances – The Court grants interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal until 1st of June 2024, with specific conditions, and states that this should not be seen as an opinion on the merits of the case – Kejriwal is to surrender on 2nd of June 2024 on the following conditions (a) he shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent; (b) he shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat; (c) he shall be bound by the statement made on his behalf that he shall not sign official files unless it is required and necessary for obtaining clearance/ approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; (d) he will not make any comment with regard to his role in the present case; and (e) he will not interact with any of the witnesses and/or have access to any official files connected with the case. B. Bail – The power to grant interim bail is an inherent power of the court, which can be exercised under compelling circumstances and grounds, even when regular bail would not be justified. This power is commonly exercised in a number of cases, including cases involving politicians. C. Bail – The court must consider the peculiarities of each case and the surrounding circumstances when granting interim bail. In this case, the court considered the fact that the appellant, Arvind Kejriwal, was the Chief Minister of Delhi and a leader of one of the national parties, had no criminal antecedents, and was not a threat to society. D. Bail – The court rejected the argument that granting interim bail to politicians sets a precedent for special treatment – The court noted that the decision was based on the peculiarities of the case and the fact that the 18th Lok Sabha General Elections were being held. E. Bail – The court held that imposing conditions on interim bail, such as prohibiting the accused from participating in political activities, directly or indirectly, would breach their fundamental rights – The court deleted the condition imposed by the High Court in a similar case, stating that the appellant shall not be involved in any political activities, directly or indirectly. F. Bail – The court clarified that the grant of interim bail does not express an opinion on the merits of the case or the criminal appeal which is pending consideration before the court.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Corporate Mining

Bird and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking and Other Properties) Act, 1980 – Sections 3 and 7 – Renewal of mining leases granted to Bird and Company Limited, which were later vested in Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL) after nationalization. BPMEL, in liquidation, and its subsidiary OMDC are central to the case – The dispute revolves around the renewal of three expired mining leases: Kolha-Roida, Thakurani, and Dalki – TGP Equity Management Private Limited, an assignee of UCO Bank’s claims against BPMEL, seeks renewal or transfer of these leases – The Government of Odisha and the Union of India argue against renewal, citing BPMEL’s non-operation and financial constraints – The Supreme Court dismissed TGP’s appeals and upheld the State of Odisha’s order, rejecting the renewal of the Kolha-Roida lease – The Thakurani and Dalki leases are also rejected, citing the impracticality of renewing leases for a defunct company and the lack of a viable mining operation plan – The dispute should be resolved, with dues settled under the Companies Act, 1956.

Jun 10, 2024 sclaw
Electricity Act

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.

Jun 10, 2024 sclaw
Bail Granted

BAIL GRANTED NDPS – PROLONGED INCARCERATION – It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

Jun 9, 2024 sclaw
Corporate

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – Sections 75(1)(g) and 90- The Supreme Court ruled that Nagar Nigam’s workshop was a ‘factory’ under the Act of 1948, and that it was engaged in a manufacturing process with over 20 workers – The Corporation argued that the workshop was a ‘factory’ and should pay contributions under the Act – Nagar Nigam argued that their workshop was not a ‘factory’ and their employees were not engaged in a manufacturing process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s order, and clarified that Nagar Nigam could seek exemption under Section 90 of the Act of 1948 – The Court relied on precedents and statutory provisions of the Act of 1948 to determine that the workshop was a ‘factory’ and subject to the Act’s provisions – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in its judgment and Nagar Nigam should have approached the Insurance Court instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Jun 4, 2024 sclaw