Category: Bail Granted

CBI case – Considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the extent of imprisonment undergone, the condition of health of the appellant and the need for the early disposal of the appeal, an order which balances the liberty of the appellant and the interest of the administration of criminal justice, should be passed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SWETABH SUMAN — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

(CrPC) – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Delay in lodging of FIR – Many a time, delay may not be fatal to the criminal proceedings. However, it always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case – However, at the same time, a long delay like 29 years as in the present case can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUMEDH SINGH SAINI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Basic rule of criminal justice system is “bail, not jail”- Right to life and personal liberty- HELD the High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee,…

DEFAULT BAIL – the magistrate ought to inform the accused of the availability of the indefeasible right u/S 167(2) CrPC once it accrues, without any delay.HELD Irrespective of the seriousness of the offence and the reliability of the evidence available, filing additional complaints merely to circumvent the application for default bail is an improper strategy.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  M. RAVINDRAN — Appellant Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar…

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.