Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - 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 Prevention of Money Laundering Act

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 3 — Appellant was a Transport Minister in Tamil Nadu and is accused of collecting money for job opportunities in the Transport Department — Multiple FIRs were filed against him, leading to his arrest and judicial custody —The main issue is whether the appellant should be granted bail in connection with the alleged offence under the PMLA —The appellant’s counsel argued that the evidence against him is not substantial, and he has already been in custody for over 14 months — They also cited a similar case (Manish Sisodia) to support their bail plea —The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that there is strong evidence against the appellant, including incriminating documents and large cash deposits — They expressed concerns about the appellant influencing witnesses if released on bail —The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, considering the prolonged incarceration and the unlikely completion of the trial in the near future — The court imposed stringent conditions for bail — The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure he does not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Sep 28, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw