Category: Bail Granted

Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 – IPC – Earlier the FIR thereof having been quashed by the High Court, even prior to the filing of the charge-sheet, even for the sake of argument, if accepted, helps the Appellant and tilt the balance in his favour – The Appellant has succeeded in making out a prima facie case for the grant of bail – Appeal Allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal…

HELD there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted – Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed – Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation the accused has not be heard.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. HEMENDHRA REDDY AND ANOTHER. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala,…

Right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India – During the pendency of the investigation, supplementary chargesheets were filed by the Investigation Agency just before the expiry of 60 days – Interim order of bail is upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RITU CHHABARIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and C. T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Writ…

Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 – Section 3, 45 and 46 – Bail – Complaint filed by the E D gives a valid argument that the second condition found in Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of PMLA is satisfied qua the appellant – Apprehension of the Enforcement Directorate that the appellant is a flight-risk and may go out of the country if released on bail, has to be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions – Bail granted – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY RAGHUNATH AGARWAL — Appellant @ HASH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

(IPC) – Ss 120B, 124A, 153A and 153B – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Ss 18 and 39 – Bail – (i) the investigation is over and (ii) the petitioner is not yet a convicted criminal – Not think that any purpose will be served in allowing the Special Court to remand him to custody and then enabling him to move an application for bail – Bail granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AKHIL GOGOI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

(CrPC) – Ss 436A and 439 – NDPS S 20, 25, 29 and 37 – Bail – Possession of 180 kilograms of ganja – Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too – Where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAIN — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.