Criminal Law – Double Murder – The case involves multiple criminal appeals against bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to accused in a double murder – The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused considering the seriousness of the offence and the stage of the trial -The appellant-complainant argued that the accused have a history of criminal activity, were the aggressors in the incident, and there is a risk of them tampering with witnesses – The accused-respondents assured they would not abscond and would cooperate with the trial, highlighting their permanent residence in the village – The Supreme Court quashed the bail orders, directing the accused to surrender, and emphasized that the observations made are not an opinion on the merits of the matter – The Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the seriousness of the offense, the role of the accused, and their criminal antecedents – The Supreme Court applied established legal principles for bail consideration, focusing on the nature of the accusation, the gravity of the offense, and the likelihood of influencing the trial – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents do not deserve bail and set aside the High Court’s orders, with a provision for the accused to apply for bail under new circumstances at a later stage.
(2024) INSC 438 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJWAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. WASEEM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 4(2) – The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA) is facing disputes over allegations of caste-based discrimination and other complaints filed against trainees and administrators – The main issue is whether the complaints filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were substantiated and whether FIRs should be registered – The appellants argued that the complaints were not made in public view and lacked specific details, thus not constituting offenses under the Act of 1989 – The respondent claimed that the complaints were ignored by the police and not investigated as mandated by the Act of 1989 – The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, upholding the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order that dismissed the application for FIR registration under the Act of 1989 – The court found the allegations vague, did not specify the offenses, and were not made in public view – The impugned judgment of the High Court directing the registration of an FIR was set aside
(2024) INSC 437 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRITI AGARWALLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.
(2024) INSC 452 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BARAKATHULLAH ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Enhancement of compensation – Indigent person – Appellant, an indigent person, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for Rs. 10 lakhs – The MACT awarded her Rs. 2,41,745 with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till realization – The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat seeking enhanced compensation – The High Court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellant permission to file the appeal as an indigent person, stating that she had received compensation by the MACT and was therefore not indigent – The appellant argued that she was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment – The court held that the appellant was still indigent despite receiving compensation from the MACT, as she had not yet received the awarded amount – The court granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person and requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment – The court relied on previous judgments to define the concept of an ‘indigent person’ and applied the principle that lack of monetary capability should not preclude a person from seeking justice – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and granted the appellant liberty to appeal as an indigent person.
(2024) INSC 457 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYA — Appellant Vs. SIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol,…
Bail — The Supreme Court has disposed of two petitions filed by Manish Sisodia, challenging an order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024 — The court has granted liberty to Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or if the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in the next three months — The court has clarified that the observations made in the judgment are only for the disposal of the present appeals and will not influence the trial court on the merits of the case, which will proceed in accordance with law and be decided on the basis of the evidence led — The court has also noted that all disputed factual and legal issues are left open — The Solicitor General has assured that the investigation will be concluded and the final complaint/charge sheet will be filed expeditiously, and at any rate on or before 03.07.2024, after which the trial court will be free to proceed with the trial.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH MANISH SISODIA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Petition(s) for Special Leave…
Visitation Rights — Appellant-mother is appealing against an order allowing the repatriation of her minor daughter to the United States of America, where her father resides — The Supreme Court granted the father’s request for visitation rights during his visit to India from 14.06.2024 to 30.06.2024 — The visitation rights will take place at Kohinoor Continental Hotel, Mumbai, on weekends falling on 15.06.2024 and 16.06.2024; 22.06.2024 and 23.06.2024; and 29.06.2024 and 30.06.2024 — During the visitation period, the father will surrender his passport with the Registrar of the Bombay High Court and ensure that he does not harm or take the child out of Mumbai — Additionally, he will arrange accommodation for the mother at the same hotel for the entire visitation period.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH SUPRIYA NAIR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. )…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 41A — Notice of appearance before police officer — Petitioner Singh filed a Special Leave Petition against the State of Karnataka & others, challenging an order dated 23-05-2024 from the High Court of Karnataka —The main issue revolves around respondent No. 2’s non-compliance with a medical examination required by the Investigating Officer for the case’s investigation — Respondent No. 2, argued against the necessity of the medical examination, citing protection from coercive action by a previous High Court order —The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order, directing respondent No. 2 to undergo a medical examination on 10th July, 2024 —The Court found respondent No. 2’s unwillingness to undergo medical examination unconvincing and not protected under the right against self-incrimination —The Court emphasized compliance with Section 41-A notice and rejected apprehensions about the medical facility without a tenable basis — The Supreme Court ordered respondent No. 2 to present himself for the medical examination as part of the investigation process.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EKTA SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih (Vacation Bench),…
Water sharing Dispute — Sharing of Yamuna water between the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the States of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh — The court found that the issue is complex and sensitive, and that it lacks the expertise to decide on the matter — Instead, the court directed the Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB), a body constituted with the agreement of the parties in a 1994 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), to consider the issue — The UYRB has already directed the State of Delhi to submit an application for the supply of additional 150 Cusec of water on humanitarian grounds, and the court directed that the application be made by 5 p.m. today and that the UYRB convene a meeting tomorrow to take a decision on the matter.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna Bhalachandra…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 37 Rule 3(6)(b) — Suit for Recovery — Impact of Moratorium under IBC — The appellants argued that the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) should halt the proceedings — However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the moratorium only applies to cases where the company is undergoing insolvency proceedings — In this case, the suit was not against a company undergoing insolvency, and therefore, the moratorium did not apply.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHER — Appellant Vs. HAFEEZ UR RAHMAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302 and 307 — The appellant, a police guard, was convicted for the murder of his cousin and neighbour, who allegedly had an affair with the appellant’s wife — The murder occurred inside a police station in Delhi —The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence, claiming self-defence or, alternatively, grave and sudden provocation — The appellant argued for self-defence, stating the deceased attempted to snatch his weapon to kill him — The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence to establish a premeditated murder — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and life sentence for murder, finding no evidence of self-defence or grave and sudden provocation.
2024 INSC 462 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURENDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…