Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Bail Granted

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.

May 7, 2023 sclaw

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…

Bail Granted Cr P C

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.

May 3, 2023 sclaw

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,…

Bail Granted Constitution Cr P C

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.

Apr 30, 2023 sclaw

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…

Bail Granted

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.

Apr 24, 2023 sclaw

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

Bail Granted

(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.

Apr 22, 2023 sclaw

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. )…

Bail Granted Narcotics

(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

Mar 30, 2023 sclaw

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

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw