Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - 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

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