Category: Bail Granted

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 -Payment of extortion money does not amount to terror funding. Not satisfied that a case of conspiracy has been made out at this stage only on the ground that the Appellant met the members of the organization. Not agree with the prosecution that the amount is terror fund. At this stage, it cannot be said that the amount seized from the Appellant is proceeds from terrorist activity. There is no allegation that Appellant was receiving any money. On the other hand, the Appellant is accused of providing money to the members of organisation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDESH KEDIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

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,…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.