Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

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.

Bysclaw

Aug 29, 2024

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

DILHARAN LAL DEWANGAN — Appellant

Vs.

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Respondent

( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal No….. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.8374 of 2024) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-04-2024 in MCRCA No. 434/2024 passed by the High Court Of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur)

Decided on : 27-08-2024

A. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — The appellant was denied anticipatory bail by the High Court — Alleging fraud and cheating in a loan transaction — Grant of Anticipatory Bail — The appellant had previously been granted anticipatory bail in another FIR filed by the brother of the complainant — The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and directed that if the appellant is arrested in connection with the aforementioned crime, he shall be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court — The Court took into account the following factors while granting bail:

The delay of nearly three years in registering the FIR after the alleged incident.

The nature of the offense, which pertains to a loan transaction.

The appellant’s claim of being falsely implicated.

B. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Delay in Filing FIR — The Court considered the significant delay in registering the complaint as a relevant factor in favor of the appellant — This aligns with previous judgments where undue delay in filing an FIR has been seen as a ground to cast doubt on the prosecution’s version and to grant bail.

C. 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.

D. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Anticipatory Bail in Related Cases — The fact that the appellant had already been granted anticipatory bail in another case filed by a related party may have influenced the Court’s decision, suggesting a consistency in the treatment of similar allegations against the same individual.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Nakul Rai, Advocate, Ms. Shipra Singh, Advocate, Ms. Neelam Singh, Advocate, for Petitioner; Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate, Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate, for Respondent

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in MCRCA No. 434 of 2024, whereby the High Court had rejected the application filed by the present appellant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 243/2023 dated 26.11.2023 registered at Police Station- Gidhouri, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section-420 read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was granted anticipatory bail in connection with the F.I.R. which was filed by the brother of the present complainant i.e.Dhaneshwari Devangan, and immediately thereafter, the present F.I.R was filed by the complainant on 26.11.2023 in connection with the alleged incident which took place on 25.01.2021 and was registered at the Police Station after almost three years i.e. on 26.11.2023. He further submitted that it was only a loan transaction and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the alleged incident.

5. Having regard to the said submissions, and without going into the merits of the case, we are inclined to accept the present appeal.

6. Hence, it is directed that in the event of the arrest of the appellant, in connection with the Crime No. 243/2023 dated 26.11.2023, registered at Police Station-Gidhouri, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section-420 read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions that may be imposed or deem fit by the Trial Court.

7. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

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
Bail Granted

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 45(1) — Application of Proviso to Section 45(1) — The Supreme Court clarified that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which grants special treatment to certain categories of accused including women, should be applied without automatically denying bail based on the accused’s social or political status — The Court emphasized that the provision is intended to protect vulnerable individuals, including women, who may be misused in criminal activities Bail granted- The Court clarified the interpretation of its previous judgment in Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401, which discussed the sensitivity required in dealing with bail applications of women and vulnerable individuals under the PMLA — The Court clarified that Saumya Chaurasia did not limit the application of the proviso to Section 45(1) to only “vulnerable women” but emphasized the need for courts to be sensitive and sympathetic towards all categories of persons mentioned in the provision, including women of all backgrounds.

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