Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Bail Granted

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

2024 INSC 400 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARVIND KEJRIWAL — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Granted

“Sanjay Singh Granted Bail on Conditions: Top Court Rejects Precedent Setting in Money Laundering Case” – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed that Sanjay Singh be released on bail, with the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court – The Order clarifies that this concession should not be treated as a precedent – Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJAY SINGH — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. ) Criminal…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

The Court considered the principles of anticipatory bail and the role of the accused, noting that the prime accused had been granted bail and the appellant’s role was secondary – The Court analyzed the factors to be considered for anticipatory bail, as laid out in previous judgments, focusing on the nature of the accusation and the role of the accused – The Supreme Court confirmed the order granting anticipatory bail to Petitioner, setting aside the order of cancellation, with the condition of cooperation in the investigation and trial.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SABITA PAUL AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol,…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory Bail – Breach of contract – Civil Dispute – Mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged – Anticipatory bail granted.

Jan 21, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAY SHRI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Bail Granted

Criminal Law – Transit anticipatory bail – In situations where an accused is a resident in a state different from where the FIR is registered, full-fledged anticipatory bail cannot be sought in the resident state – However, the individual is entitled to apply for transit anticipatory bail from the Court of Session or High Court in their resident state

Nov 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRIYA INDORIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Granted

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 389(1) – Appeal for suspension of sentence is pending – Bail Canceled by High Court – Appeal – Under no circumstances, the bail granted to an accused under sub-section 1 of Section 389 can be cancelled without giving a reasonable opportunity to the accused of being heard – Under sub-section 1 of Section 389, while suspending the sentence of the appellant-accused who is in Jail, the Appellate Court has to enlarge the accused on bail till the final disposal of the appeal – Second proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 389 permits the Public Prosecutor to file an application for cancellation of the bail granted under sub-section 1 –

Nov 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURUSHOTHAMAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3341…

Bail Granted

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 4 – Punishment for money laundering – Bail – As a result, the respondents argue that this money is the proceeds of a criminal activity – Appellant being accused of possessing Rs. 30 lakh in his bank account, it’s important to note that this money was deposited on January 24, 2022, which precedes the alleged illegal activity

Sep 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BACHHU YADAV — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PMLA) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

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