Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - 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

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw