The document discusses a court order modifying an earlier order regarding the release of certain petitioners on bail. Specifically, it changes the wording of the earlier order to indicate that petitioners no.2, 6, 7 and 8 should be released on bail rather than petitioners no.1, 6, 7 and 8. The rest of the earlier order is to remain unchanged. The modification order was issued to correct discrepancies pointed out in the note for speaking to minutes.
The Supreme Court of India was hearing a special leave petition related to the 2002 Gujarat riots case. The hearing that began on October 26th was adjourned and will now continue on November 10th at the request of the petitioners' counsel Kapil Sibal, as he needed more time to conclude arguments and the court was going into Diwali break. The petitioners were allowed to file 4 additional volumes of documents before the next hearing date.
The High Court of Tripura registered a suo motu public interest litigation based on press reports of violence that occurred on October 26th in North Tripura, Unakoti, and Sipahijala districts. The Advocate General provided details of cases registered, peace meetings held, and steps taken to maintain law and order. The Court appreciated the state's efforts but directed forming peace committees at sub-divisional and panchayat levels. It also directed the state to provide details of the investigation and compensation to victims. The Court commended the media's role in restoring peace but warned against spread of fake news on social media.
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals challenging a High Court order granting bail to two individuals accused of terrorist activities. The individuals were accused of being members of a terrorist organization and charged with offenses under India's anti-terrorism laws. The High Court had set aside bail for one accused but confirmed it for the other. The appeals argued that the charges made out a prima facie case that the accused intended to further terrorist activities based on materials seized from them. However, the High Court found that the charge sheet did not show the accused had an intention to encourage or facilitate terrorist acts as required by law. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions and prior case law on this issue.
The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased's husband, were convicted of dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC for beating and harassing the deceased and demanding jewels and money, which caused her mental agony and suicide. They filed this appeal seeking to suspend their 2-year sentence. While the petitioners argued there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and they never lived with the deceased, the court found materials in the record to show the petitioners induced their son to demand dowry. The court dismissed the petition, noting parents have a responsibility to properly raise their children and cannot escape liability by not living with them, and upheld the conviction given the nature of the offense.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding oral remarks made by the Madras High Court about the Election Commission of India (ECI) during an election-related hearing. The key points are:
1) The Madras High Court allegedly made oral remarks criticizing the ECI for not enforcing COVID-19 protocols during elections, saying the ECI was "singularly responsible" for the second wave and "should be put up for murder charges."
2) The ECI filed a petition challenging these oral remarks, arguing they were made without evidence and prejudiced the ECI.
3) The Supreme Court must balance judicial freedom of expression, media reporting of courts, and accountability of constitutional bodies
The High Court of Kerala granted a stay on the operation of an order by the Chief Electoral Officer that deferred a proposal by the State of Kerala to distribute 10kg of rice at Rs. 15/kg to non-priority ration card holders in March and April 2021. The Court summarized the documents and arguments presented, and found that the proposal could not be prohibited by the model code of conduct as the decision for distribution was taken as early as February 4, 2021 based on the state budget and before the elections were contemplated. However, the Court specified the distribution must be done without any ostentatious functions that could influence voters.
The High Court of Karnataka heard a case regarding compliance with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The Court found that the State Government had not complied with most of the directions in the Court's previous order. The Court directed the State Government to file a detailed affidavit by April 20th regarding compliance with all directions. It also directed the State to ensure local authorities use modern technology to clean sewers and septic tanks as required by the Act.
The Supreme Court of India was hearing a special leave petition related to the 2002 Gujarat riots case. The hearing that began on October 26th was adjourned and will now continue on November 10th at the request of the petitioners' counsel Kapil Sibal, as he needed more time to conclude arguments and the court was going into Diwali break. The petitioners were allowed to file 4 additional volumes of documents before the next hearing date.
The High Court of Tripura registered a suo motu public interest litigation based on press reports of violence that occurred on October 26th in North Tripura, Unakoti, and Sipahijala districts. The Advocate General provided details of cases registered, peace meetings held, and steps taken to maintain law and order. The Court appreciated the state's efforts but directed forming peace committees at sub-divisional and panchayat levels. It also directed the state to provide details of the investigation and compensation to victims. The Court commended the media's role in restoring peace but warned against spread of fake news on social media.
The applicant challenged two orders - one extending his detention for 90 days under the UAPA and the other rejecting his application for default bail. The court analyzed whether the requirements for seeking extension of detention under the UAPA were satisfied. It found that the public prosecutor had submitted a detailed report outlining the progress of the investigation and reasons for seeking an extension. It also found that a joint application for the applicant and another accused was justified as the allegations against them were identical. Therefore, the mandatory requirements for extending detention under the UAPA were satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to default bail.
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals challenging a High Court order granting bail to two individuals accused of terrorist activities. The individuals were accused of being members of a terrorist organization and charged with offenses under India's anti-terrorism laws. The High Court had set aside bail for one accused but confirmed it for the other. The appeals argued that the charges made out a prima facie case that the accused intended to further terrorist activities based on materials seized from them. However, the High Court found that the charge sheet did not show the accused had an intention to encourage or facilitate terrorist acts as required by law. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions and prior case law on this issue.
The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased's husband, were convicted of dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC for beating and harassing the deceased and demanding jewels and money, which caused her mental agony and suicide. They filed this appeal seeking to suspend their 2-year sentence. While the petitioners argued there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and they never lived with the deceased, the court found materials in the record to show the petitioners induced their son to demand dowry. The court dismissed the petition, noting parents have a responsibility to properly raise their children and cannot escape liability by not living with them, and upheld the conviction given the nature of the offense.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding oral remarks made by the Madras High Court about the Election Commission of India (ECI) during an election-related hearing. The key points are:
1) The Madras High Court allegedly made oral remarks criticizing the ECI for not enforcing COVID-19 protocols during elections, saying the ECI was "singularly responsible" for the second wave and "should be put up for murder charges."
2) The ECI filed a petition challenging these oral remarks, arguing they were made without evidence and prejudiced the ECI.
3) The Supreme Court must balance judicial freedom of expression, media reporting of courts, and accountability of constitutional bodies
The High Court of Kerala granted a stay on the operation of an order by the Chief Electoral Officer that deferred a proposal by the State of Kerala to distribute 10kg of rice at Rs. 15/kg to non-priority ration card holders in March and April 2021. The Court summarized the documents and arguments presented, and found that the proposal could not be prohibited by the model code of conduct as the decision for distribution was taken as early as February 4, 2021 based on the state budget and before the elections were contemplated. However, the Court specified the distribution must be done without any ostentatious functions that could influence voters.
The High Court of Karnataka heard a case regarding compliance with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The Court found that the State Government had not complied with most of the directions in the Court's previous order. The Court directed the State Government to file a detailed affidavit by April 20th regarding compliance with all directions. It also directed the State to ensure local authorities use modern technology to clean sewers and septic tanks as required by the Act.
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
1. The document summarizes a court case involving a petition filed by Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri challenging his detention under the National Security Act by the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri.
2. The grounds for detention included posting provocative content on Facebook aimed at provoking Hindu sentiments and disturbing public order. An FIR was registered and the petitioner was arrested.
3. The detention order was approved, confirmed, and extended on multiple occasions by various authorities. The petitioner argued the charges in the FIR did not warrant detention under the National Security Act.
The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations are that the petitioner, who owns 5 acres 4 guntas of land, wrongfully claimed ownership of 3 acres 3 guntas of the second respondent's neighboring land and obtained revenue records in his name. However, the court finds that the dispute appears to be civil in nature regarding ownership of land between two parties. Further, the ingredients to prove offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act are not made out based on the facts.
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
This document is an order from the High Court of Gujarat regarding two petitions challenging sections of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 as amended in 2021. The court heard arguments from both sides and decided to grant an interim stay on the operation of certain sections of the amended Act. Specifically, the court ruled that pending further hearings, marriages solemnized between people of different religions without force, allurement or fraud cannot be termed unlawful conversions under the Act in order to protect interfaith couples from harassment. The court found that the amended Act interferes with individuals' right to marriage and religious choice under the Constitution of India. It set the next hearing date as September 30th.
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021ZahidManiyar
1. The petitioner challenged his detention order under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
2. The petitioner was running a business and an FIR was registered against him for illegally stocking and selling oxygen cylinders without a license. A raid found 571 jumbo and 90 small oxygen cylinders in his warehouse.
3. The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to consider that he was already in custody at the time the detention order was passed and his potential release on bail, which is required. The court found no mention of the petitioner's custody in the detention order.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding a writ petition filed by Vinod Dua against the registration of an FIR against him. The FIR was filed pursuant to a complaint alleging that statements made by Dua in a YouTube talk show on March 30th spread false information and violated sections of the Indian Penal Code. In the writ petition, Dua argues that the contents of the video were critical analysis of the government and not unlawful. He seeks quashing of the FIR and guidelines for registering FIRs against members of the media with over 10 years of experience. The state's affidavit in reply refers to sections of the Disaster Management Act regarding punishment for false claims or warnings leading to panic during a pandemic.
This document summarizes three petitions heard by the Patna High Court regarding the right to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bihar, India. It discusses the constitutional right to health and life under Article 21 and the state's duty to provide medical infrastructure and treatment. It notes the massive surge in COVID cases in Bihar in 2021 and orders the state to take steps to improve oxygen supply and healthcare infrastructure to treat patients.
The High Court of Karnataka found that the state government had failed to comply with the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. While the state had complied with one directive, it failed to comply with all other directives from the court's previous order. The court granted the state one more opportunity to file a fresh compliance affidavit by March 1st. It also directed the state government to place on record the actions taken regarding a specific incident of manual scavenging that occurred in January 2020, in addition to registering an FIR. The petitions will be listed again on February 10th for the state to inform the court about actions taken.
This document summarizes orders from the High Court of Karnataka regarding the implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The Court notes that there has been little implementation of the Act and Rules in Karnataka. It issues a rule nisi and will exercise continuing mandamus to monitor the situation. As an interim measure, the Court reiterates that manual scavenging violates fundamental rights and dignity. It summarizes key aspects of the Act, including the broad definition of "manual scavenger" and provisions requiring the demolition of insanitary latrines and the construction of sanitary community latrines. The Court finds there has been inadequate implementation of the Act aimed at eliminating this in
The petitioner, Jafar Sathick, filed a criminal original petition to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No. 63 of 2020 by the Boothapandy Police Station. The FIR alleged that the petitioner organized a protest against amendments to the Citizenship Laws that caused public nuisance and hindered traffic. However, the court noted that the protest was peaceful with no untoward incidents. Since the investigation was almost complete, the court quashed the FIR against the petitioner while emphasizing the constitutional right to peaceful protest without arms.
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking compensation from the state government respondents for the death of the minor son/brother of the petitioners, who died due to police firing on September 23, 2021 at their village in Darrang District, Assam. The court issued notice to the respondent state government officials, returnable by December 1, 2021. The petitioners were also directed to serve copies of the writ petition and annexures to the state government advocate by October 26, 2021. The case was listed for further proceedings.
The petition challenges an order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980. The order is challenged on two grounds: (1) the State failed to prove that the order of detention and approval were communicated to the Central Government as required by law; and (2) the District Magistrate took 3 days to forward the case to the State Government for approval, violating the legal requirement to do so "forthwith". Based on previous court decisions on interpreting similar requirements under the NSA, the court allows the petition and quashes the detention order.
1) The petitioner had been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Jorhat and has been in detention since May 2019, nearing completion of two years in detention.
2) In light of Supreme Court orders on releasing detainees who have completed two years to avoid COVID spread, the court directs the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 and one surety of the same amount.
3) The court reiterates an earlier order directing authorities to release all detainees who have completed two years, on a personal bond and one surety to address the pandemic, while complying with other directions.
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
1. The document summarizes a court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat regarding criminal appeal case R/CR.A/1089/2021.
2. The appellant, Ashwinbhai @ Raj Ranchhodhbhai Poyala, had been convicted by a lower court for rape and offenses related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for his relationship with the victim.
3. However, the High Court overturned the conviction after finding that the appellant and victim were in a consenting relationship, lived as husband and wife, and had two children together, so the case was more accurately an offense under the Child Marriage Act.
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
This document is a bail petition order from a court in India. It summarizes a case involving 15 individuals who were arrested and charged with various offenses related to participating in an unauthorized protest that turned violent. The defense argued the individuals were wrongly implicated and the charges were excessive. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses. After reviewing evidence and considering the individuals had been in custody for 15 days, the court granted bail with conditions, finding continued custody was not necessary and the evidence did not fully support the charges.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
The petitioners, Siddharth Varadarajan and another, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against them under Sections 153-B and 505(2) of IPC by the Rampur Police. The state was given 3 weeks to file a counter affidavit. The court also ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court until the next hearing on November 24th. The petitioners must also submit a self-attested computer generated copy of the Supreme Court order along with an identity proof.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi summarizing a bail application case. The petitioner Sanjay is accused of rape and blackmail by the complainant over a period of 3 years. However, the court order notes inconsistencies in the complainant's story such as a delay in filing the police complaint, evidence that she lived alone in the house she claimed to be held in, and a tattoo of the petitioner's name on her arm suggesting a romantic relationship rather than non-consensual encounters. As such, the court grants bail to the petitioner pending the final case outcome.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case involving two appellants, Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Choudhury, who were convicted of assaulting and causing the death of Kasinath Naik. The Supreme Court heard arguments from counsel for the appellants, the state of Odisha, and the legal representatives of the deceased. The appellants deposited compensation in court and all parties agreed to compound the offense of conviction under Section 324 IPC. The Supreme Court considered converting the Section 324 conviction to Section 323 or substituting imprisonment with a fine, given the appellants' advanced age.
The document is an order from a High Court in India regarding an application for bail. It summarizes the following:
1) The applicant, Babita Sukar Kashyap, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered against her for offenses related to sedition, conspiracy, and causing enmity between groups.
2) She is alleged to have instigated followers of a tribal group in Gujarat to take violent action based on her interpretation of constitutional provisions. However, the prosecution has not clearly established her specific role or any actual violence.
3) The court observed that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, the key evidence is collected, and the prosecution has not shown any risk
1. The document summarizes a court case involving a petition filed by Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri challenging his detention under the National Security Act by the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri.
2. The grounds for detention included posting provocative content on Facebook aimed at provoking Hindu sentiments and disturbing public order. An FIR was registered and the petitioner was arrested.
3. The detention order was approved, confirmed, and extended on multiple occasions by various authorities. The petitioner argued the charges in the FIR did not warrant detention under the National Security Act.
The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations are that the petitioner, who owns 5 acres 4 guntas of land, wrongfully claimed ownership of 3 acres 3 guntas of the second respondent's neighboring land and obtained revenue records in his name. However, the court finds that the dispute appears to be civil in nature regarding ownership of land between two parties. Further, the ingredients to prove offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act are not made out based on the facts.
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
This document is an order from the High Court of Gujarat regarding two petitions challenging sections of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 as amended in 2021. The court heard arguments from both sides and decided to grant an interim stay on the operation of certain sections of the amended Act. Specifically, the court ruled that pending further hearings, marriages solemnized between people of different religions without force, allurement or fraud cannot be termed unlawful conversions under the Act in order to protect interfaith couples from harassment. The court found that the amended Act interferes with individuals' right to marriage and religious choice under the Constitution of India. It set the next hearing date as September 30th.
Mp hc wp 9799 2021_final_order_28-jul-2021ZahidManiyar
1. The petitioner challenged his detention order under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
2. The petitioner was running a business and an FIR was registered against him for illegally stocking and selling oxygen cylinders without a license. A raid found 571 jumbo and 90 small oxygen cylinders in his warehouse.
3. The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to consider that he was already in custody at the time the detention order was passed and his potential release on bail, which is required. The court found no mention of the petitioner's custody in the detention order.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding a writ petition filed by Vinod Dua against the registration of an FIR against him. The FIR was filed pursuant to a complaint alleging that statements made by Dua in a YouTube talk show on March 30th spread false information and violated sections of the Indian Penal Code. In the writ petition, Dua argues that the contents of the video were critical analysis of the government and not unlawful. He seeks quashing of the FIR and guidelines for registering FIRs against members of the media with over 10 years of experience. The state's affidavit in reply refers to sections of the Disaster Management Act regarding punishment for false claims or warnings leading to panic during a pandemic.
This document summarizes three petitions heard by the Patna High Court regarding the right to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic in Bihar, India. It discusses the constitutional right to health and life under Article 21 and the state's duty to provide medical infrastructure and treatment. It notes the massive surge in COVID cases in Bihar in 2021 and orders the state to take steps to improve oxygen supply and healthcare infrastructure to treat patients.
The High Court of Karnataka found that the state government had failed to comply with the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. While the state had complied with one directive, it failed to comply with all other directives from the court's previous order. The court granted the state one more opportunity to file a fresh compliance affidavit by March 1st. It also directed the state government to place on record the actions taken regarding a specific incident of manual scavenging that occurred in January 2020, in addition to registering an FIR. The petitions will be listed again on February 10th for the state to inform the court about actions taken.
This document summarizes orders from the High Court of Karnataka regarding the implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The Court notes that there has been little implementation of the Act and Rules in Karnataka. It issues a rule nisi and will exercise continuing mandamus to monitor the situation. As an interim measure, the Court reiterates that manual scavenging violates fundamental rights and dignity. It summarizes key aspects of the Act, including the broad definition of "manual scavenger" and provisions requiring the demolition of insanitary latrines and the construction of sanitary community latrines. The Court finds there has been inadequate implementation of the Act aimed at eliminating this in
The petitioner, Jafar Sathick, filed a criminal original petition to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No. 63 of 2020 by the Boothapandy Police Station. The FIR alleged that the petitioner organized a protest against amendments to the Citizenship Laws that caused public nuisance and hindered traffic. However, the court noted that the protest was peaceful with no untoward incidents. Since the investigation was almost complete, the court quashed the FIR against the petitioner while emphasizing the constitutional right to peaceful protest without arms.
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking compensation from the state government respondents for the death of the minor son/brother of the petitioners, who died due to police firing on September 23, 2021 at their village in Darrang District, Assam. The court issued notice to the respondent state government officials, returnable by December 1, 2021. The petitioners were also directed to serve copies of the writ petition and annexures to the state government advocate by October 26, 2021. The case was listed for further proceedings.
The petition challenges an order of preventive detention passed against the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980. The order is challenged on two grounds: (1) the State failed to prove that the order of detention and approval were communicated to the Central Government as required by law; and (2) the District Magistrate took 3 days to forward the case to the State Government for approval, violating the legal requirement to do so "forthwith". Based on previous court decisions on interpreting similar requirements under the NSA, the court allows the petition and quashes the detention order.
1) The petitioner had been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Jorhat and has been in detention since May 2019, nearing completion of two years in detention.
2) In light of Supreme Court orders on releasing detainees who have completed two years to avoid COVID spread, the court directs the petitioner's release on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 and one surety of the same amount.
3) The court reiterates an earlier order directing authorities to release all detainees who have completed two years, on a personal bond and one surety to address the pandemic, while complying with other directions.
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
1. The document summarizes a court judgment from the High Court of Gujarat regarding criminal appeal case R/CR.A/1089/2021.
2. The appellant, Ashwinbhai @ Raj Ranchhodhbhai Poyala, had been convicted by a lower court for rape and offenses related to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for his relationship with the victim.
3. However, the High Court overturned the conviction after finding that the appellant and victim were in a consenting relationship, lived as husband and wife, and had two children together, so the case was more accurately an offense under the Child Marriage Act.
This document is a court order regarding the bail application of Salim Malik, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution argues that Salim was part of a large riotous mob that vandalized and burned down a car showroom, causing significant property damage. While the defense argues Salim was falsely implicated, the prosecution provides witness testimony identifying Salim as being present and participating in the rioting, and says his phone location places him at the crime scene. The court considers both arguments but notes issues with the timing of the witness statement against Salim in denying his bail application.
This document is a bail petition order from a court in India. It summarizes a case involving 15 individuals who were arrested and charged with various offenses related to participating in an unauthorized protest that turned violent. The defense argued the individuals were wrongly implicated and the charges were excessive. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses. After reviewing evidence and considering the individuals had been in custody for 15 days, the court granted bail with conditions, finding continued custody was not necessary and the evidence did not fully support the charges.
The Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The appellants were arrested in connection with offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sought bail after 90 days as no chargesheet was filed. The High Court had rejected bail, noting the extension granted to the investigation. However, the Supreme Court held that under its previous judgment, the Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to extend the investigation period for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
The petitioners, Siddharth Varadarajan and another, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against them under Sections 153-B and 505(2) of IPC by the Rampur Police. The state was given 3 weeks to file a counter affidavit. The court also ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court until the next hearing on November 24th. The petitioners must also submit a self-attested computer generated copy of the Supreme Court order along with an identity proof.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi summarizing a bail application case. The petitioner Sanjay is accused of rape and blackmail by the complainant over a period of 3 years. However, the court order notes inconsistencies in the complainant's story such as a delay in filing the police complaint, evidence that she lived alone in the house she claimed to be held in, and a tattoo of the petitioner's name on her arm suggesting a romantic relationship rather than non-consensual encounters. As such, the court grants bail to the petitioner pending the final case outcome.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case involving two appellants, Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Choudhury, who were convicted of assaulting and causing the death of Kasinath Naik. The Supreme Court heard arguments from counsel for the appellants, the state of Odisha, and the legal representatives of the deceased. The appellants deposited compensation in court and all parties agreed to compound the offense of conviction under Section 324 IPC. The Supreme Court considered converting the Section 324 conviction to Section 323 or substituting imprisonment with a fine, given the appellants' advanced age.
This document is an order from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay summarizing a criminal application seeking to quash a domestic violence case. In 3 sentences:
The application was filed to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings regarding allegations of domestic violence, harassment, and cruelty filed by the applicant's wife against the applicant and his family members. The court analyzed the allegations and evidence in detail and found the allegations to be vague and not sufficient to attract the necessary ingredients of the offenses charged. Therefore, the court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings.
The court document details a bail application hearing for a man accused of sexually assaulting a 5-year-old neighbor. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses and risk of witness intimidation. While the defense argued the man never committed any offenses, the court denied bail, noting the serious accusations of aggravated sexual assault and the victim's clear statements about feeling the touch was "bad."
1. Amit Gupta and Neha Gupta filed a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. They got married in 2011 and have one daughter together but have been living separately since 2012 due to temperamental differences.
3. They reached an agreement on settlement terms including payment of money, return of belongings, custody of daughter, and withdrawal of legal cases.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Jharkhand regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by a husband (the petitioner) seeking the return of his wife (respondent No. 6) from her family. The court interviewed the wife separately and found she was under duress from her family to state she wanted to stay with them. The court then allowed the husband to take his wife home to live together freely and directed police to ensure their safety, as the wife feared harm from her family due to inter-caste marriage. The court also directed informing the Chief Minister about allegations against a Cabinet Minister made in the wife's statement.
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application hearing for a case involving charges of rape, fraud, criminal intimidation, and unlawful religious conversion. The applicant, Sonu Rajpoot, sought bail while awaiting trial. The court summarized the arguments of the applicant's lawyer, who argued that the victim was a consenting adult and the applicant was falsely accused due to a religious conversion dispute. The prosecution opposed bail. Considering the circumstances, lack of evidence tampering, and consent between the applicant and victim, the court granted bail to the applicant with conditions including not harassing the victim.
The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased's husband, were convicted of dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC for beating and harassing the deceased and demanding jewels and money, which caused her mental agony and suicide. They filed this appeal seeking to suspend their sentence. The court notes that parents often escape liability by claiming they did not live with their son, but still induce him to demand dowry. While the petitioners claimed no possibility of dowry demands since they did not live together, the court found materials in the record to convict the petitioners and upheld their conviction and sentence, dismissing the miscellaneous petition.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Karnataka summarizing a criminal case and petition. It discusses:
1) A complaint was filed alleging the petitioners trespassed a property, picked a quarrel, abused the complainant and threatened him and others with dire consequences.
2) The petitioners filed a writ petition to quash the criminal proceedings. The court analyzed the complaint and statements and found offenses under IPC and SC/ST Act were made out.
3) While some offenses may not apply to all petitioners, there was a joint trial required. The court dismissed the petition, finding ingredients for the charges were present and quashing was not justified. The criminal proceedings against the petition
Interlocutory Application dated 9.10.22 for Cancellation of NBW before SC.pdfOm Prakash Poddar
Recall the order dated 25.08.2010 and 08.09.2011, whereby Non-Bailaible Warrants were issued against the petitioner Om Prakash and his mother Asha Rani Devi by Begusarai Court under the judicature of Patna High Court in 9-P/2010 and 397c/2011 (Criminal Case Complaint (P) no. 5591/2013) case and Cancel the Non-Bailaible Warrants issued against the Petitioner and his mother to eradicate Prostitution and International Sex Racket.
Application (I.A.No.164340) for Non Bailable Warrant dated 01.11.2022 SC.pdfOmPrakashPoddar1
Non Bailable Warrant issued kept secret and maintained since 2010 to confiscate my Property, to push my families into prostitution and to kill my parents including me.
This document summarizes a court case in Criminal Appeal No. 2158 of 2021. The appellant, Motilal, appealed to set aside an order denying him bail. Motilal claims to have had a distinct role from co-accused, only being present during the alleged victim's conversion, not directly involved. The court found nothing convincing justifying denying bail. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order denying bail, ordering Motilal be released on bail with conditions but not extending to co-accused.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay cancelled the anticipatory bail that had been granted to Mohit Subhash Chavan. The court found that the lower court's order granting bail was arbitrary and lacked sensitivity given the serious nature of the crimes, which included rape and sexual exploitation of a minor (Rinku Nana Pardhi) under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The High Court determined that the lower court failed to properly apply legal principles in entertaining the anticipatory bail application. The anticipatory bail was quashed and Mohit Subhash Chavan was ordered to surrender immediately to the Investigating Officer.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal challenging bail conditions imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a sexual assault case that required the accused to visit the complainant's house with sweets and gifts. The appellants argued such conditions trivialize the trauma of survivors and affect their dignity. The court examined several other cases where judges made insensitive remarks or encouraged compromise through marriage in rape and sexual assault cases. It discussed the need to sensitize courts and ensure bail conditions do not permit contact between accused and survivor or affect the fair trial in any way. The Attorney General also submitted guidelines for courts to consider while granting bail in crimes against women.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India judgement regarding bail conditions imposed in sexual assault cases. The Court heard a challenge to a High Court order imposing the condition that the accused and his wife visit the survivor's home with gifts. The Court discussed how some judicial decisions reflect entrenched misogynistic attitudes. It cited several other problematic judgements where courts encouraged compromise or marriage in rape/sexual assault cases, or made insensitive remarks about survivors. The Court aimed to address such attitudes and clarify that no conditions should disrespect survivors or influence trials in these serious crimes.
The document discusses an application for bail filed by Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. While the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the judge found the evidence linking Imam's speeches to subsequent acts of violence by co-accused to be scanty and inconclusive. The judge granted Imam bail for offenses related to inciting violence but will further examine charges of sedition against Imam.
The document discusses a bail application hearing for Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. It notes that while the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the defense argues there is no evidence linking Imam's words to any criminal acts. In its ruling, the court finds the evidence against Imam for abetting offenses to be insufficient and scanty.
The petitioner filed a criminal appeal challenging his conviction under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor girl. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed a petition seeking to take additional evidence from the victim by recording her deposition. The petitioner claimed the victim now wants to state the truth. However, the court dismissed the petition, noting the victim had already clearly testified during trial that the petitioner assaulted her. The court said the offense was non-compoundable and the victim cannot now help the petitioner escape law by claiming their relationship is consensual.
This judgment involves two related matrimonial appeals. The High Court of Kerala upheld the family court's judgment granting a divorce to the wife on the grounds of cruelty by the husband. The court found that the husband treated the wife as a source of money, constantly harassing her and her family for funds. He mismanaged his real estate business and spent money lavishly. He also physically and sexually abused the wife, even during her pregnancy. The husband further levelled false allegations of adultery against the wife. Taking all the circumstances into account, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the divorce.
1. The petitioners, a married couple, filed a habeas corpus petition claiming the detenue's (wife's) father was illegally preventing her from living with her husband. Both parties are adults who married willingly. The father accepted the wife's decision to live with her husband.
2. However, the couple expressed that the notice and objection period required under the Special Marriage Act to solemnize their marriage would invade their privacy and cause unnecessary social interference and pressure regarding their choice of partner.
3. The court must consider the issues raised regarding the rights of individuals to life and liberty in choosing a marriage partner without undue notice and objection periods required under law. The provisions of the Special Marriage Act may need
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Tax Law Notes on taxation law tax law for 10th sem
Guj hc bail order
1. Modification of Order dtd.
13/10/2021 in R/CR.MA/13761/2021
R/SCR.A/7670/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7670 of 2021
[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 13/10/2021 in
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ]
==========================================================
DIVYABEN W/O SAMEER ABDULBHAI QURESHI D/O VIJAYBHAI
JETHABHAI ROHIT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MUHAMMAD ISA M HAKIM(10874) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MRS KRINA CALLA, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 18/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
Upon hearing learned advocate for the petitioners,
the discrepancies pointed out in the Note for Speaking to
Minutes deserves to be corrected. It is therefore, directed
that in the order dated 13.10.2021 passed in Special
Criminal Application No.7670 of 2021 in para-14, the
words “….. petitioners no.1, 6, 7 and 8 are ordered to be
released on bail...” be substituted and be read as
“….petitioners no.2, 6, 7 and 8 are ordered to be
released on bail...”.
Fresh writ be issued. Rest of the order shall remain
unaltered. The Note for Speaking to Minutes is disposed of
accordingly.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
TAUSIF SAIYED
Page 1 of 1
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
2. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13761 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7670 of 2021
==========================================================
MEHER ISMAILBHAI MALEK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HITESH L GUPTA(3937) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MUHAMMAD ISA M HAKIM(10874) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MITESH AMIN, LD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSISTED BY MRS KRINA
CALLA, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 13/10/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER
Order in Criminal Misc. Application No.13761 of 2021
Heard Mr. Hitesh L. Gupta, learned advocate for the
applicant, Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the
respondent-State and Mr. Muhammad Isa M. Hakim,
learned advocate for the respondent no.2.
In view of settlement arrived at between the
informant and her husband-accused no.1 and considering
the allegations alleged against the applicant, she has
made out a case for interim relief.
Rule, returnable on 29.11.2021. Learned APP waives
service of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State
and Mr. Hakim, learned advocate waives service of rule for
and on behalf of respondent no.2.
Page 1 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
3. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
Let there shall be no coercive steps (arrest) by the
investigating agency against the present applicant till
then. However, investigation may continue. The
Investigating Officer shall not file charge-sheet without
prior permission of this Court.
Order in Special Criminal Application No.7670 of 2021
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for
following substantial reliefs:
“(A) THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
quash the FIR being CR. No. I – 11196004210480
dated 17/06/2021 registered with Gotri Police
Station, Vadodara City, for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 498(A), 376(2)(n), 377, 312,
313, 504, 506(2), 120(B) and 419 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 4, 4A, 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 5 of
Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 as amended in
the year 2021 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5-
a), 3(1)(w)(1)(2) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of
this petition, THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO stay, execution, implementation and operation of
the impugned FIR being CR. No. I – 11196004210480
dated 17/06/2021 registered with Gotri Police
Station, Vadodara City, for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 498(A), 376(2)(n), 377, 312,
313, 504, 506(2), 120(B) and 419 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 4, 4A, 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 5 of
Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 as amended in
the year 2021 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5-
a), 3(1)(w)(1)(2) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and further also be pleased to order the immediate
and forthwith release of the Petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 6,
Page 2 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
4. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
7, 8 on appropriate conditions as may be deemed fit
by the Hon’ble Court;”
2. Heard Mr. Muhammad Isa M. Hakim, learned
advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned
Public Prosecutor assisted by Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP
for the respondent-State and Mr. Hitesh L. Gupta, learned
advocate for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application
No.13761 of 2021.
3. The brief facts giving rise to filing of present petition
are as follows:
3.1 The petitioner no.1 – informant and petitioner no.2-
accused no.1 are wife and husband respectively. Prior to
filing of this FIR, the informant Divyaben daughter of
Vijaybhai Jethabhai Rohit and accused no.2 – Samir
Abdulbhai Qureshi came to know each other in the year
2019 and developed intimate relationship. They came into
contact with each other through social media and on
account of their intimate relationship, they became aware
about each other’s identity, character, family details and
each other’s religion.
3.2 In view of aforesaid relationship, the informant and
accused no.1 executed an undertaking/understanding
agreement dated 08.02.2021 and the said agreement was
signed by the witnesses namely mother of the accused
no.1 and father of the informant and as per the
agreement, they have agreed to marry each other under
the Special Marriage Act, 1954 by following their
respective religions. Thereafter, in presence of their
Page 3 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
5. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
parents and family members, got married as per Muslim
Rites and Rituals solemnized on 16.02.2021 and also
declared their marriage on oath jointly by way of affidavit
wherein they have categorically stated that the marriage
was without any force or coercion and out of their free will
and the marriage was registered with Vadodara Municipal
Corporation. On 20.02.2021, both have filed an application
under Section-15 of the Special Marriage Act in form
provided in Rule 30 and accordingly, marriage was
registered and certificate of marriage was issued under
Section 16 of the Special Marriage Act and the same was
witnessed by father of the informant, mother of accused
no.1 and two other witnesses.
3.3 Subsequently, due to some petty and trivial marital
and matrimonial issues arose between accused no.1 and
the informant, the informant had decided to left the
matrimonial house and went to parental home. On
17.06.2021, the impugned FIR came to be registered with
Gotri Police Station, Vadodara alleging that the accused
no.1 made forcible sexual intercourse, taking obscene
photographs of the informant, causing forcible miscarriage
and was compelled to forcibly convert her religion and
used casteist slurs. She has also alleged that there was a
conspiracy amongst the accused to commit the said
offences. Initially, four persons were arraigned as accused
namely husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-
in-law of the informant and accused no.6 to 8 were
arraigned subsequently who are relatives and in-laws of
the informant and witness/Kazi.
Page 4 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
6. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
4. In the aforesaid background of facts, the petitioners
have jointly sought consent quashing of the FIR mainly on
the ground that issues between husband and wife were
petty and trivial matrimonial disputes which have been
resolved and therefore, as they wanted to continue their
matrimonial and marital relationship and therefore, the
impugned FIR may be quashed with the consent of both
the parties.
5. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate for the petitioners
would submit that in view of settlement, the petitioners
have a good prima-facie case and therefore, if the interim
relief for bail as prayed for, is not granted, then, they shall
suffer irreparable loss and injury by deprivation of their
personal liberties whereas grant of the same shall not
cause any harm or injury to the respondents.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Hitesh L. Gupta, learned
advocate for the applicant – Meher Ismailbhai Malek
(Criminal Misc. Application No.13761 of 2021) would
submits that the applicant has not played any role in the
alleged offence and she has been arraigned as an accused
alleging that she is a friend of accused no.1 and accused
no.1 and the informant have stayed at her home. He
would further submits that instead of citing witness by the
police agency, she has been wrongly arraigned as an
accused in the alleged offence which is nothing but misuse
of process of law.
7. Heard Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the
Page 5 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
7. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
respondent-State at length.
8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and upon bare perusal of the impugned
FIR and material placed on record, it appears that the
petitioner no.1-informant was in relationship with the
accused no.1 and both of them had agreed to marry each
other and had followed the procedure like performed
Nikahnama, got their marriage registered under Special
Marriage Act, 1954 and lived together as husband and
wife. The petitioners no.2, 3, 4 and 5 are in-laws of the
informant whereas petitioners no.6, 7 and 8 are the
witnesses of the marriage.
9. The petitioners are facing charges for the offences
punishable under the provisions of Gujarat Freedom of
Religion Act, 2021 (amendment). The Act, 2003, initially
brought into force in April, 2003. Section 3 of 2003 Act
provides for prohibition of conversion of any person from
one religion to another religion by use of force or by
allurement or by any fraudulent means. By the
Amendment Act, 2021, which brought into force by way of
Notification dated 04.06.2021, a marriage itself is
presumed to be a medium for the purposes of unlawful
conversion if the marriage was by way of allurement, force
or by way of fraudulent means. In the new amendment,
Section 4(A) prescribes punishment of imprisonment in the
rage of 3 to 5 years for unlawful conversion. Section 4(B)
declares marriages by unlawful convesion as void. Section
4(C) deals with offence of organizations doing unlawful
conversion. Section 6 provides prior sanction of District
Page 6 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
8. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
Magistrate is necessary to start prosecution against the
accused.
10. The vires of the Amendment Act have been
challenged by N.G.O. JAMIAT-ULAMA-E-HIND GUJARAT
(Special Civil Application No.10304 of 2021) wherein
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.08.2021
after referring the case of Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan
reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368, have stayed the rigors of
Section 3, 4, 4A to 4C, 5, 6 and 6A observing that the
provisions shall not operate merely because of marriage is
solemnized by a person of one religion with a person of
another religion without force or by allurement or by
fraudulent means and such marriages cannot be termed
as marriages for the purposes of unlawful conversion. The
State has challenged the same before the Apex Court.
11. It is apt to rely and refer to the decision rendered in
case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami versus State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427,
wherein it is held that the High Court must exercise its
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
grant interim bail with caution and circumspection,
cognizant of the fact. The relevant paragraphs no.66 and
67 read thus:
“66. These principles are equally applicable to
the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution when the court is called upon to secure
the liberty of the accused. The High Court must
exercise its power with caution and circumspection,
cognizant of the fact that this jurisdiction is not a
ready substitute for recourse to the remedy of bail
under Section 439 of the CrPC. In the backdrop of
Page 7 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
9. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
these principles, it has become necessary to
scrutinize the contents of the FIR in the case at
hand. In this batch of cases, a prima facie evaluation
of the FIR does not establish the ingredients of the
offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of
the IPC. The appellants are residents of India and do
not pose a flight risk during the investigation or the
trial. There is no apprehension of tampering of
evidence or witnesses. Taking these factors into
consideration, the order dated 11-11-2020
envisaged the release of the appellants on bail.
J Human liberty and the role of Courts
67. Human liberty is a precious constitutional
value, which is undoubtedly subject to regulation by
validly enacted legislation. As such, the citizen is
subject to the edicts of criminal law and procedure.
Section 482 recognizes the inherent power of the
High Court to make such orders as are necessary to
give effect to the provisions of the CrPC “or prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. Decisions of this court
require the High Courts, in exercising the
jurisdiction entrusted to them under Section 482, to
act with circumspection. In emphasising that the
High Court must exercise this power with a sense of
restraint, the decisions of this Court are founded on
the basic principle that the due enforcement of
criminal law should not be obstructed by the
accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies.
The public interest in ensuring the due investigation
of crime is protected by ensuring that the inherent
power of the High Court is exercised with caution.
That indeed is one – and a significant - end of the
spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is equally
important: the recognition by Section 482 of the
power inhering in the High Court to prevent the
abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a
valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. The Code
of Criminal Procedure of 1898 was enacted by a
legislature which was not subject to constitutional
rights and limitations; yet it recognized the inherent
power in Section 561A. Post- Independence, the
recognition by Parliament of the inherent power of
the High Court must be construed as an aid to
preserve the constitutional value of liberty. The writ
of liberty runs through the fabric of the Constitution.
The need to ensure the fair investigation of crime is
undoubtedly important in itself, because it protects
Page 8 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
10. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
at one level the rights of the victim and, at a more
fundamental level, the societal interest in ensuring
that crime is investigated and dealt with in
accordance with law. On the other hand, the misuse
of the criminal law is a matter of which the High
Court and the lower Courts in this country must be
alive. In the present case, the High Court could not
but have been cognizant of the specific ground
which was raised before it by the appellant that he
was being Section 482 of the CrPC 1973 made a
target as a part of a series of occurrences which
have been taking place since April 2020. The
specific case of the appellant is that he has been
targeted because his opinions on his television
channel are unpalatable to authority. Whether the
appellant has established a case for quashing the
FIR is something on which the High Court will take a
final view when the proceedings are listed before it
but we are clearly of the view that in failing to make
even a prima facie evaluation of the FIR, the High
Court abdicated its constitutional duty and function
as a protector of liberty. Courts must be alive to the
need to safeguard the public interest in ensuring
that the due enforcement of criminal law is not
obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an aid
to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across the
spectrum – the district judiciary, the High Courts
and the Supreme Court – to ensure that the criminal
law does not become a weapon for the selective
harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to
both ends of the spectrum – the need to ensure the
proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand
and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law
does not become a ruse for targeted harassment.
Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous
can be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her
citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in the
dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of (and not
by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty
when one of these components is found wanting.”
12. In light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex
Court and considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case more particularly the
settlement arrived at between the husband and wife i.e.
informant and accused no.1, the petitioners have made
Page 9 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
11. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
out a prima-facie case for interim relief in the nature of
bail. Thus, without entering into merits of the
case, it is a fit case to exercise discretion under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to grant relief. Thus,
considering the nature of dispute, severity of punishment
and in absence of any past antecedents of like nature and
as there is no possibility of fleeing from justice, the
discretion is required to be exercised.
13. Rule, returnable on 29.11.2021. Learned APP
waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-
State.
14. Thus, at the interim stage, without examining the
merits of the case, the petitioners no.1, 6, 7 and 8 are
ordered to be released on bail on executing a personal
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each,
with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned Trial Court and subject to the conditions that
they shall;
No. Conditions
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse
liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the
prosecution;
(c) surrender passports, if any, to the lower court
within a week from the date of their release;
(d) not leave India without prior permission of the
Sessions Judge concerned;
Page 10 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021
12. Present Order is modified vide
Order dtd. 18/10/2021 in
R/SCR.A/7670/2021
R/CR.MA/13761/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2021
(e) furnish latest address of residence to the
Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the
time of execution of the bond and shall not
change the residence without prior permission of
the trial Court;
Over and above the regular mode of service, direct
service through e-mode is also permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
TAUSIF SAIYED
Page 11 of 11
Downloaded on : Tue Oct 19 02:50:37 IST 2021