This document is a court order from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding a bail application. A 20-year-old man who was arrested for allegedly alluring and raping a 16-year-old girl has applied for bail. The court analyzed the facts of the case, relevant case law, and considered arguments from both sides. While the conduct of the victim indicates some consent, she could not legally consent given her age. However, considering the stage of investigation and time already served, the court granted bail to the petitioner subject to strict terms and conditions to ensure his appearance and prevent interference with the investigation.
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.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case, Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, regarding the granting of anticipatory bail for serious offenses. The case involved the murder of a man who was shot 5 times by two respondents who had a previous dispute with the deceased. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to the respondents, noting the serious nature of the offense, the prompt filing of the FIR within 2 hours of the incident, and that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional cases. The Supreme Court outlined factors like the gravity of the accusation and possibility of fleeing justice that must be considered before granting anticipatory bail.
The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Mohd. Danish in an FIR registered for offenses related to rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, etc. during the February 2020 Delhi riots.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that the disclosure statement attributed to him was fabricated and inadmissible. The prosecution argued that the petitioner was actively involved in the riots based on witness statements and call detail records placing him at the scene. The court examined the medical evidence showing the injuries on the deceased police officer but noted that it was unclear who delivered the fatal blow.
This document provides a 3-page summary of a bail application hearing in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
[1] The petitioner, Aman Sagotra, is seeking bail in an FIR registered under Section 376 IPC (rape) against him. He claims the sexual relationship was consensual as the prosecutrix willingly entered into it.
[2] However, the prosecutrix alleges the petitioner developed an illicit relationship with her against her will while she was a minor, and raped her on 22.10.2019 by threatening her.
[3] Considering the factors governing bail under law, the Court finds a prima facie case of rape against the petitioner. It
The petitioner Pushpalatha S filed a petition against respondent Guruswamy S under Section 125(1) of CrPC seeking maintenance. The petitioner and respondent got married on 12-08-2010 in a mass marriage ceremony registered in the Sub-Registrar office of Chamarajanagar. However, the respondent left the petitioner and started living separately without reasonable cause after 2 months of marriage. The petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Hence, the petitioner requested that the respondent be directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000 for her livelihood.
Ktaka hc order june 22 rape accused bailZahidManiyar
The petitioner, Rakesh B, sought anticipatory bail in relation to crimes registered against him under sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and section 66(B) of the IT Act. His earlier petition was rejected by a lower court.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noting inconsistencies and lack of explanation in the complainant's version of events. The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including executing a personal bond, cooperating with investigation, not leaving the jurisdiction, and reporting regularly to police. Failure to abide by conditions could result in cancellation of bail.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard an appeal filed by Harishchandra against an order denying him bail. Harishchandra has been in custody since September 2018 for offenses including gang rape under the SC/ST Act. His lawyer argued he is innocent and the prosecutrix has now married Harishchandra. However, the court upheld the lower court's order, noting it is a gang rape case and the prosecutrix's statement identified Harishchandra, so it was not a suitable case for bail. The court dismissed the appeal and denied Harishchandra's request to be released on bail.
1. Ram Kumar has filed a bail application in connection with FIR No. 156/2018 registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempted murder.
2. He claims to be innocent and falsely implicated. He owns a textile business and has no criminal record.
3. Ram Kumar promises to abide by any bail conditions and attend court on all hearing dates, and seeks bail citing his innocence, responsibility, and that keeping him in custody serves no purpose.
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.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case, Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, regarding the granting of anticipatory bail for serious offenses. The case involved the murder of a man who was shot 5 times by two respondents who had a previous dispute with the deceased. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to grant anticipatory bail to the respondents, noting the serious nature of the offense, the prompt filing of the FIR within 2 hours of the incident, and that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional cases. The Supreme Court outlined factors like the gravity of the accusation and possibility of fleeing justice that must be considered before granting anticipatory bail.
The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Mohd. Danish in an FIR registered for offenses related to rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, etc. during the February 2020 Delhi riots.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that the disclosure statement attributed to him was fabricated and inadmissible. The prosecution argued that the petitioner was actively involved in the riots based on witness statements and call detail records placing him at the scene. The court examined the medical evidence showing the injuries on the deceased police officer but noted that it was unclear who delivered the fatal blow.
This document provides a 3-page summary of a bail application hearing in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
[1] The petitioner, Aman Sagotra, is seeking bail in an FIR registered under Section 376 IPC (rape) against him. He claims the sexual relationship was consensual as the prosecutrix willingly entered into it.
[2] However, the prosecutrix alleges the petitioner developed an illicit relationship with her against her will while she was a minor, and raped her on 22.10.2019 by threatening her.
[3] Considering the factors governing bail under law, the Court finds a prima facie case of rape against the petitioner. It
The petitioner Pushpalatha S filed a petition against respondent Guruswamy S under Section 125(1) of CrPC seeking maintenance. The petitioner and respondent got married on 12-08-2010 in a mass marriage ceremony registered in the Sub-Registrar office of Chamarajanagar. However, the respondent left the petitioner and started living separately without reasonable cause after 2 months of marriage. The petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Hence, the petitioner requested that the respondent be directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000 for her livelihood.
Ktaka hc order june 22 rape accused bailZahidManiyar
The petitioner, Rakesh B, sought anticipatory bail in relation to crimes registered against him under sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and section 66(B) of the IT Act. His earlier petition was rejected by a lower court.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noting inconsistencies and lack of explanation in the complainant's version of events. The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including executing a personal bond, cooperating with investigation, not leaving the jurisdiction, and reporting regularly to police. Failure to abide by conditions could result in cancellation of bail.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard an appeal filed by Harishchandra against an order denying him bail. Harishchandra has been in custody since September 2018 for offenses including gang rape under the SC/ST Act. His lawyer argued he is innocent and the prosecutrix has now married Harishchandra. However, the court upheld the lower court's order, noting it is a gang rape case and the prosecutrix's statement identified Harishchandra, so it was not a suitable case for bail. The court dismissed the appeal and denied Harishchandra's request to be released on bail.
1. Ram Kumar has filed a bail application in connection with FIR No. 156/2018 registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempted murder.
2. He claims to be innocent and falsely implicated. He owns a textile business and has no criminal record.
3. Ram Kumar promises to abide by any bail conditions and attend court on all hearing dates, and seeks bail citing his innocence, responsibility, and that keeping him in custody serves no purpose.
1) Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows individuals to apply for anticipatory bail if they believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense.
2) The High Court or Court of Session has jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail and may impose conditions to ensure justice and prevent obstruction.
3) Courts have wide discretion in deciding anticipatory bail applications on a case by case basis due to the impossibility of laying down rules for all possible cases.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the National Investigation Agency against a High Court order granting bail to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, who was accused in a terrorism funding case. The trial court had rejected bail citing serious allegations against Watali, including acting as a conduit for funds to terrorists and separatists in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the High Court granted bail subject to conditions. In its judgment, the Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and allegations in detail and concluded that the offenses against Watali were prima facie established. It also noted that he received adequate medical care in jail. The Court allowed the appeal and canceled the bail granted by the High Court.
1) The court heard from petitioner 1, who submitted that she converted to Islam of her own free will and married petitioner 2 without force. She stated she faces threats to her life from respondents 6 and 7 due to her marriage.
2) Petitioner 1 provided documents showing she is of legal age to marry. She asked the court to protect her life and that of her husband based on constitutional guarantees.
3) The court directed respondents 1-5, including police, to ensure the petitioners' safety and are not harassed by respondents 6 and 7, and to allow them to live married without interference.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner, an advocate, for protesting against restrictions on the entry route to the District Court complex in Shimla. The court order provides background details on the FIR and the petitioner's arguments. It discusses the stage at which an FIR can be quashed, prior judicial precedents on quashing FIRs, and examines whether the allegations in this case prima facie disclose any offense. The court will further consider whether the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed.
1) Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows individuals to apply for anticipatory bail if they believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense.
2) The court can impose conditions when granting anticipatory bail, such as not leaving the country without permission.
3) Only the High Court and Court of Session have jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail applications under Section 438.
1. This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Kuldeep Singh, who is accused in an FIR for rioting and murder.
2. The defense argues that Kuldeep should be granted bail on the grounds that other co-accused have received bail and he has been in custody since March 2020. However, the prosecution argues that Kuldeep was identified by witnesses as part of the riotous mob that beat the victim to death.
3. The judge heard arguments from both sides and will review the case details and chargesheet before making a decision on whether to grant bail to Kuldeep Singh.
The document is an order from a court case involving the bail application of Umar Khalid regarding FIR No. 101/2020 filed at PS Khajuri Khas. The key points are:
1) Umar Khalid is accused of being involved in a larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots based on his disclosure statement and meeting with accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi as identified by a witness.
2) The defense argued Umar Khalid was not physically present during the crime and deserves bail on the grounds of parity with other accused granted bail in the case.
3) The prosecution contends Umar Khalid was part of a larger conspiracy to incite
The petitioner, Gagan Debbarma, filed a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 341 and 302 IPC for the alleged lynching of Saiful Islam. The investigation revealed that the petitioner was part of the mob that chased and lynched the deceased on suspicion of cattle theft. Considering the gravity of the offense and the eyewitness statements implicating the petitioner, the court rejected the bail application, noting that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and the parameters for granting it were not satisfied in this case.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a petition seeking to quash an FIR for rape and other related offenses. The petitioner and complainant had entered into a compromise agreement and were seeking to quash the case. However, the court denied the request to quash the FIR, noting that rape is a serious offense against society. The court found that the petitioner had misrepresented his identity and there was evidence he had forged documents related to their marriage. The court held it could not quash the case solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties for such a serious offense.
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application case. It discusses the facts of the case, including statements made by the prosecutrix and informant, and contradictory details in the statements. It notes that the prosecutrix and applicant had a prior consensual relationship and material contradictions exist in her statements. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court ultimately granted bail to the applicant, noting he has no prior criminal record and has been jailed since September 2020. Bail was granted with conditions including not contacting the prosecutrix, cooperating with trial, and not engaging in further criminal acts.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
This document summarizes a bail hearing for Ashwani Upadhyay, who was arrested under several sections of the IPC as well as epidemic disease and disaster management acts. His lawyers argued that he left the site of the alleged offenses before they occurred and is not visible in any videos. The prosecution argued he organized the event and his custody is needed for a thorough investigation. After hearing both sides, the court considered the guidelines on reducing prison overcrowding during the pandemic in deciding whether to grant bail.
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Ishrat Jahan to set aside an order granting a 60-day extension of time for investigation in an FIR registered against her. The court document provides background on the case against Ishrat Jahan and the arguments from her counsel and the state. It discusses the provisions of sections 43D and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding extension of investigation periods. The court ultimately dismisses the petition after considering arguments from both sides.
The document discusses bail amounts set in three criminal cases in Malaysia. In the first case, bail of RM70,000 was set for a man charged with 14 offenses related to insulting the Johor royal family, which many viewed as excessive given the charges and the man's financial means. In the second case, bail of RM5,000 was set for a sedition charge, which matched the maximum fine amount and was also seen as unjustifiably high. In the third case, bail of RM15,000 was set for a prominent opposition figure charged with criminal defamation, which some argued was still excessive despite being lower than what prosecutors requested. The document analyzes factors courts typically consider for bail amounts and concludes the
1. The petition seeks to quash criminal proceedings against the second respondent who is facing trial for offenses under Section 366 IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act, and Section 9 of Child Marriage Act.
2. The defacto complainant (mother of the victim) and the victim girl (who was in a relationship with the second respondent) have approached the court seeking to quash proceedings as they want the respondent and victim to get married.
3. The court examined the victim girl and her mother, and they both stated they do not want to continue with the criminal proceedings and want the case to be quashed so the victim can get married.
Know about anticipatory bail and condition to grant the bail.
#anticipatorybail #CrPC #bail #court #sectio438 and know why the anticipatory bail is filed?
Watch the YT video for a better understanding of Anticipatory bail: https://youtu.be/zG56kfug_ww
The petitioner filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The court notes that the complainant and petitioner have settled the matter amicably. While the court acknowledges the settlement, it directs the petitioner to perform one month of community service at a de-addiction center. The petitioner is also fined Rs. 100,000 to be paid to various organizations. The court disposes of the petition after these directions, warning the petitioner not to engage in such behavior again.
1) This document summarizes court proceedings from a case involving 18 accused persons related to protests and riots in Delhi.
2) One accused, Ishrat Jahan, alleged in court that she had been beaten by other inmates and feared for her safety, mentioning two other inmates by name.
3) The court ordered the jail superintendent to file a report on the allegations and steps taken to ensure the safety of inmates, and to produce all accused currently in custody on the next hearing date.
1) Five individuals - Mohd. Saleem, Sameer Ansari, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, and Vikram Thakur - filed separate bail applications regarding their involvement in protests against the CAA that turned violent.
2) The court dismissed the bail application of Khalid Saifi due to the serious allegations against him, including instigating the mob and providing a firearm to another accused.
3) The court granted bail to Ishrat Jahan, Mohd. Saleem, Sameer Ansari, and Vikram Thakur as no overt unlawful acts were attributed to them and they had already spent over 20 days in custody. Bail was granted with conditions including surrendering pass
1) The applicant Golu @ Tasneem @ Taslim filed a bail application in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking bail in connection with a crime registered under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act.
2) It was argued for the applicant that he is the first offender and has been in custody since August 23, 2021. His custodial interrogation is no longer required.
3) The prosecution opposed the bail plea submitting that various identity cards of different names were recovered from the applicant. The court examined the facts of the case and granted bail to the applicant with various conditions.
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.
1) The court heard arguments from the counsel for the applicant Mohd. Chand and the counsel for the state in a criminal case involving sections 153A, 295, 505, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.
2) The applicant was seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of disrespecting religious feelings and disturbing communal harmony by performing namaz inside a temple.
3) The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with conditions including surrendering his passport, not contacting witnesses, and appearing for key court hearings.
1) Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows individuals to apply for anticipatory bail if they believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense.
2) The High Court or Court of Session has jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail and may impose conditions to ensure justice and prevent obstruction.
3) Courts have wide discretion in deciding anticipatory bail applications on a case by case basis due to the impossibility of laying down rules for all possible cases.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the National Investigation Agency against a High Court order granting bail to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, who was accused in a terrorism funding case. The trial court had rejected bail citing serious allegations against Watali, including acting as a conduit for funds to terrorists and separatists in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the High Court granted bail subject to conditions. In its judgment, the Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and allegations in detail and concluded that the offenses against Watali were prima facie established. It also noted that he received adequate medical care in jail. The Court allowed the appeal and canceled the bail granted by the High Court.
1) The court heard from petitioner 1, who submitted that she converted to Islam of her own free will and married petitioner 2 without force. She stated she faces threats to her life from respondents 6 and 7 due to her marriage.
2) Petitioner 1 provided documents showing she is of legal age to marry. She asked the court to protect her life and that of her husband based on constitutional guarantees.
3) The court directed respondents 1-5, including police, to ensure the petitioners' safety and are not harassed by respondents 6 and 7, and to allow them to live married without interference.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner, an advocate, for protesting against restrictions on the entry route to the District Court complex in Shimla. The court order provides background details on the FIR and the petitioner's arguments. It discusses the stage at which an FIR can be quashed, prior judicial precedents on quashing FIRs, and examines whether the allegations in this case prima facie disclose any offense. The court will further consider whether the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed.
1) Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows individuals to apply for anticipatory bail if they believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense.
2) The court can impose conditions when granting anticipatory bail, such as not leaving the country without permission.
3) Only the High Court and Court of Session have jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail applications under Section 438.
1. This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Kuldeep Singh, who is accused in an FIR for rioting and murder.
2. The defense argues that Kuldeep should be granted bail on the grounds that other co-accused have received bail and he has been in custody since March 2020. However, the prosecution argues that Kuldeep was identified by witnesses as part of the riotous mob that beat the victim to death.
3. The judge heard arguments from both sides and will review the case details and chargesheet before making a decision on whether to grant bail to Kuldeep Singh.
The document is an order from a court case involving the bail application of Umar Khalid regarding FIR No. 101/2020 filed at PS Khajuri Khas. The key points are:
1) Umar Khalid is accused of being involved in a larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots based on his disclosure statement and meeting with accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi as identified by a witness.
2) The defense argued Umar Khalid was not physically present during the crime and deserves bail on the grounds of parity with other accused granted bail in the case.
3) The prosecution contends Umar Khalid was part of a larger conspiracy to incite
The petitioner, Gagan Debbarma, filed a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 341 and 302 IPC for the alleged lynching of Saiful Islam. The investigation revealed that the petitioner was part of the mob that chased and lynched the deceased on suspicion of cattle theft. Considering the gravity of the offense and the eyewitness statements implicating the petitioner, the court rejected the bail application, noting that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and the parameters for granting it were not satisfied in this case.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a petition seeking to quash an FIR for rape and other related offenses. The petitioner and complainant had entered into a compromise agreement and were seeking to quash the case. However, the court denied the request to quash the FIR, noting that rape is a serious offense against society. The court found that the petitioner had misrepresented his identity and there was evidence he had forged documents related to their marriage. The court held it could not quash the case solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties for such a serious offense.
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application case. It discusses the facts of the case, including statements made by the prosecutrix and informant, and contradictory details in the statements. It notes that the prosecutrix and applicant had a prior consensual relationship and material contradictions exist in her statements. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court ultimately granted bail to the applicant, noting he has no prior criminal record and has been jailed since September 2020. Bail was granted with conditions including not contacting the prosecutrix, cooperating with trial, and not engaging in further criminal acts.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
This document summarizes a bail hearing for Ashwani Upadhyay, who was arrested under several sections of the IPC as well as epidemic disease and disaster management acts. His lawyers argued that he left the site of the alleged offenses before they occurred and is not visible in any videos. The prosecution argued he organized the event and his custody is needed for a thorough investigation. After hearing both sides, the court considered the guidelines on reducing prison overcrowding during the pandemic in deciding whether to grant bail.
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Ishrat Jahan to set aside an order granting a 60-day extension of time for investigation in an FIR registered against her. The court document provides background on the case against Ishrat Jahan and the arguments from her counsel and the state. It discusses the provisions of sections 43D and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding extension of investigation periods. The court ultimately dismisses the petition after considering arguments from both sides.
The document discusses bail amounts set in three criminal cases in Malaysia. In the first case, bail of RM70,000 was set for a man charged with 14 offenses related to insulting the Johor royal family, which many viewed as excessive given the charges and the man's financial means. In the second case, bail of RM5,000 was set for a sedition charge, which matched the maximum fine amount and was also seen as unjustifiably high. In the third case, bail of RM15,000 was set for a prominent opposition figure charged with criminal defamation, which some argued was still excessive despite being lower than what prosecutors requested. The document analyzes factors courts typically consider for bail amounts and concludes the
1. The petition seeks to quash criminal proceedings against the second respondent who is facing trial for offenses under Section 366 IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act, and Section 9 of Child Marriage Act.
2. The defacto complainant (mother of the victim) and the victim girl (who was in a relationship with the second respondent) have approached the court seeking to quash proceedings as they want the respondent and victim to get married.
3. The court examined the victim girl and her mother, and they both stated they do not want to continue with the criminal proceedings and want the case to be quashed so the victim can get married.
Know about anticipatory bail and condition to grant the bail.
#anticipatorybail #CrPC #bail #court #sectio438 and know why the anticipatory bail is filed?
Watch the YT video for a better understanding of Anticipatory bail: https://youtu.be/zG56kfug_ww
The petitioner filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. The court notes that the complainant and petitioner have settled the matter amicably. While the court acknowledges the settlement, it directs the petitioner to perform one month of community service at a de-addiction center. The petitioner is also fined Rs. 100,000 to be paid to various organizations. The court disposes of the petition after these directions, warning the petitioner not to engage in such behavior again.
1) This document summarizes court proceedings from a case involving 18 accused persons related to protests and riots in Delhi.
2) One accused, Ishrat Jahan, alleged in court that she had been beaten by other inmates and feared for her safety, mentioning two other inmates by name.
3) The court ordered the jail superintendent to file a report on the allegations and steps taken to ensure the safety of inmates, and to produce all accused currently in custody on the next hearing date.
1) Five individuals - Mohd. Saleem, Sameer Ansari, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, and Vikram Thakur - filed separate bail applications regarding their involvement in protests against the CAA that turned violent.
2) The court dismissed the bail application of Khalid Saifi due to the serious allegations against him, including instigating the mob and providing a firearm to another accused.
3) The court granted bail to Ishrat Jahan, Mohd. Saleem, Sameer Ansari, and Vikram Thakur as no overt unlawful acts were attributed to them and they had already spent over 20 days in custody. Bail was granted with conditions including surrendering pass
1) The applicant Golu @ Tasneem @ Taslim filed a bail application in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking bail in connection with a crime registered under various sections of IPC and POCSO Act.
2) It was argued for the applicant that he is the first offender and has been in custody since August 23, 2021. His custodial interrogation is no longer required.
3) The prosecution opposed the bail plea submitting that various identity cards of different names were recovered from the applicant. The court examined the facts of the case and granted bail to the applicant with various conditions.
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.
1) The court heard arguments from the counsel for the applicant Mohd. Chand and the counsel for the state in a criminal case involving sections 153A, 295, 505, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.
2) The applicant was seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of disrespecting religious feelings and disturbing communal harmony by performing namaz inside a temple.
3) The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with conditions including surrendering his passport, not contacting witnesses, and appearing for key court hearings.
1. Gulfisha Fatima filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the State to produce her and release her from what she claims is illegal custody.
2. She was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs including charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her bail applications were dismissed except for one case where she was granted bail.
3. The court dismissed the writ petition stating that her detention was not illegal as she was in judicial custody pursuant to court orders and the remedy lies in appealing those orders, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
The applicant, Rahmu @ Rahmuddin, applied for bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2020 under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The court considered that the applicant was not arrested from the spot, the offense is triable by a magistrate with a maximum sentence of 7 years, and the act is often misused by showing recovered meat as cow meat without analysis. Considering this and precedent from the Supreme Court, the court granted bail to the applicant with 10 conditions, such as cooperating with the trial and not engaging in criminal activity.
This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Delhi regarding a bail petition. The respondent/accused, Faisal Farooq, is an educationist who runs several schools. He was granted bail in one case (FIR 134/2020), but was arrested the day of his scheduled release in another case (FIR 73/2020). The respondent's lawyer argued that the second arrest was mala fide to prevent his release. The court examined past judgments establishing that bail once granted should only be cancelled for cogent reasons. The chargesheet also indicates the respondent was not present at the site of the alleged offense. The court will determine if there are sufficient grounds to cancel the previously granted bail.
The applicant, Dr. Satish, who is a qualified medical practitioner with no prior criminal record, applied for bail in a case where he has been charged with offenses related to a shortage of medical oxygen at a hospital where he was head of the anesthesia department. The court analyzed documents and statements from the investigation and found that the applicant was not involved in procuring, billing or payments for the medical oxygen supplies. Considering this and that the applicant has already spent 7 months in custody, the court granted bail to the applicant with conditions to ensure his presence at trial.
This document is a court order summarizing a case involving an application for anticipatory bail. The applicant, Adil, had previously been granted anticipatory bail until the police report was submitted. Now that the charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance taken, Adil applied again for anticipatory bail until the conclusion of trial. The court reviewed relevant case law and determined that anticipatory bail can be granted at this stage. Considering the facts of the case, the court granted Adil anticipatory bail until the conclusion of trial, subject to certain conditions.
The court document discusses suspending the sentence of the appellant Babu Lal, who had been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for offenses under the POCSO Act and IPC against his daughter. While the appellant has served over 7 years of his sentence, his appeal case was not likely to be heard soon. The court decides to suspend the appellant's remaining sentence subject to several conditions to prevent contact with his wife and daughter.
Professional ethics contempt of courts act - re arundhati roy caseMohith Sanjay
1) The Supreme Court initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against author Arundhati Roy for her comments criticizing a Supreme Court decision in an article and during protests.
2) Roy argued her comments constituted fair criticism protected under law, while the Court held her comments scandalized the Court's authority with malafide intentions.
3) The Court sentenced Roy to one day imprisonment and a Rs. 2,000 fine, citing precedents around permissible criticism of courts and showing magnanimity by keeping the sentence symbolic given Roy is a woman.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail in the CrPC and relevant case laws.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by both sides and then discusses how it will exercise its discretion in light of the circumstances around the case as well as the current pandemic situation.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail applications in the CrPC.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by the defense and prosecution and ultimately decides to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant while imposing certain conditions.
This document is a court judgment summarizing a case regarding a petition challenging an order of detention under the National Security Act. The key details are:
- The petitioner was detained under the NSA based on his involvement in multiple criminal cases.
- The petitioner argued that the detention order lacked sufficient details and relied on stale cases.
- The court analyzed previous judgments which established that a detention order must demonstrate a likelihood of prejudicial acts and threat to public order, not just criminal behavior.
- The court ultimately set aside the detention order, finding it did not sufficiently demonstrate how the petitioner threatened public order or that normal law was insufficient to address the situation.
The petitioner Suraj Kumar was arrested for possession of 500 grams of charas and charged with offenses under the NDPS Act. His bail application to the trial court was rejected. In this petition, the High Court considers whether to grant bail. [The High Court grants bail to the petitioner, finding that the quantity was intermediate and not commercial, so the rigors of section 37 do not apply. It also finds that further incarceration would be punitive without conviction. The petitioner is granted bail on furnishing a bond and with conditions of appearing for hearings, not leaving the jurisdiction, and not contacting witnesses.]
The court found R-3, a police officer, guilty of contempt of court for arresting the petitioner without following proper legal procedures as outlined in a previous Supreme Court case. Specifically, R-3 failed to serve the required notice under section 41A of the Cr.P.C. before arresting the petitioner. While R-3 apologized, the court did not accept the apology as it was not sincere and was only offered as a last resort. As a result, the court sentenced R-3 to one day in simple imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 2,000, and costs of Rs. 15,000 to be paid to the petitioner. However, the sentence will be kept in abeyance for two
This include some important formats applicable in Indian courts and is very essential for Law Students.
These formats may even be translated to the local (scheduled) indian languages and may be used in the respective courts.
The document is an order from a court case involving the bail application of Umar Khalid regarding FIR No. 101/2020 filed at PS Khajuri Khas. The key points are:
1) Umar Khalid is accused of being involved in a larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 Delhi riots based on his disclosure statement and meeting with accused Tahir Hussain and Khalid Saifi as identified by a witness.
2) The defense argued Umar Khalid was not physically present during the crime and deserves bail on the grounds of parity with other accused granted bail in the case.
3) The prosecution contends Umar Khalid was part of a larger conspiracy to incite
The court heard arguments on a bail application filed by Akhilanand Rao, who was accused of making objectionable remarks against the Chief Minister and others under Sections 419, 420, 120B IPC 66D of I.T Act. While the prosecution argued against bail, the defense claimed it was a false implication. Considering Article 21 of the Constitution regarding personal liberty, the court granted bail to Rao with conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, cooperating with trial, not engaging in crimes or tampering with evidence, and restricting social media use for two years or until trial conclusion.
The applicant, Akhilanand Rao, filed a bail application to be released pending trial in a criminal case in the District of Deoria. He is accused under Sections 419, 420, 120B IPC 66D of making objectionable remarks against the Chief Minister and falsely claiming statuses. The court considered the applicant's criminal history and Article 21 rights. While not expressing opinion on the merits, the court granted bail with conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and sureties, cooperating with trial, not engaging in crimes or intimidating witnesses, and not using social media for two years or until trial conclusion. Breach of conditions could lead to bail cancellation.
This document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding a writ petition filed by Salamat Ansari and others seeking to quash an FIR registered against them.
The court notes that the key petitioner, Priyanka Kharwar, is an adult who willingly converted to Islam and married Salamat Ansari under Muslim rites more than a year ago. While the state argued the conversion and marriage had no validity, the court found that as consenting adults, Priyanka and Salamat have a right to live together by choice which is protected under the right to life and liberty in the Indian Constitution.
The court order references several past Supreme Court rulings affirming an individual's freedom of choice
The court document summarizes a bail application hearing for an applicant named Nitin Raj, who was charged with various offenses related to participating in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The prosecution argued Raj helped create a law and order situation and obstructed traffic. However, the defense argued Raj was falsely implicated, had no criminal history, and had not engaged in any unlawful activity during a prior release. Considering these factors and that the charged offenses carry less than 7 years imprisonment, the court granted Raj bail with conditions that he cannot tamper with evidence, seek adjournments, or engage in further criminal activity.
Similar to Hp high court bail rape accused order (20)
1. The families of prisoners held in Taloja Central Prison and Byculla Women's Prison wrote a letter regarding the discontinuation of weekly telephone interviews for family members when physical visits resume.
2. They expressed concern that discontinuing phone calls would cause problems for out-of-town family members who cannot easily travel to Mumbai for physical visits, as well as economically weak and elderly relatives.
3. The letter requested that phone interviews be allowed to continue in a hybrid model, where Mumbai-based relatives could choose a physical or phone visit, to ensure prisoners' right to communicate with family and advocates as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
The High Court of Tripura issued an order directing the State of Tripura Aids Control Society to be impleaded as a respondent. The State and Union of India were directed to issue guidelines to conduct a thorough research of all persons in State prisons to ascertain if any are infected with HIV. If any infected persons are found, necessary action must be taken for their treatment and care in accordance with law to prevent an epidemic. A report on the matter must be submitted to the court by November 9, 2021. The court also requested an Amicus Curiae to assist and oversee the matter.
Report vigilantism and attack on the freedom of religion in meerutZahidManiyar
This document summarizes an incident of communal violence and vigilantism in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India. It discusses the history of communal tensions and riots in Meerut dating back to the 1930s. On September 20, 2017, two members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious group were invited into a Hindu man's home but then detained against their will for over an hour, assaulted, and handed over to the police with false allegations of forced conversion efforts. The police refused to register a complaint about the assault and illegally detained the victims overnight without medical treatment. The document analyzes this incident as an example of the shift in India to smaller scale vigilantism targeting religious minorities, with the tacit support
Christians under attack_in_india_reportZahidManiyar
The document provides a summary of attacks on Christians in India, including two specific incidents in Roorkee and Mau, Uttar Pradesh:
1) In Roorkee, a mob of 250-300 people attacked a church, injuring several attendees. Police did not provide security despite prior complaints.
2) In Mau, a mob accused Christians of conversion during a prayer meeting. Seven people including the pastor were arrested under anti-conversion laws.
It also lists other incidents of threats, violence and false accusations against Christians in various parts of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and other states, indicating growing targeted attacks against the Christian minority in India.
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.
This document summarizes a court case revision petition hearing. The judge stayed the operation of the previous court order from October 12, 2021 until the next hearing date of November 12, 2021. The revision petition notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents. The trial court record was reviewed and the special public prosecutor and police inspector were present to provide submissions.
This document is a court order from a case involving multiple accused persons. It summarizes proceedings from a hearing where the prosecution requested more time for further investigation into the case. The court allowed more time but imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be split among the accused, noting delays in the investigation. It also ordered the Secretary of Home Affairs to inquire about responsibility for the costs being imposed and deducting the amount from the responsible officer's salary. The case was adjourned to a future date for further proceedings.
The Archbishop of Bangalore expresses concern over the Karnataka government's plan to survey Christian missionaries and places of worship. He argues that such surveys could unfairly target and endanger the Christian community. The Archbishop questions why only Christians are being surveyed, noting that Christians constitute a small percentage of the population. He calls on the government to respect constitutional protections of religious freedom and consider the educational and social services provided by Christian institutions instead of pursuing anti-conversion policies.
For website 211014 cjp-ncm complaint over muslim family in indore chairperson...ZahidManiyar
The complaint alleges that a Muslim family in Indore, Madhya Pradesh was attacked by a mob of 150 people associated with the RSS on October 9, 2021. The family was threatened and told to leave the village. Family members sustained head injuries and their house was ransacked. The police delayed registering an FIR and instead filed a counter-complaint against the family. The complaint cites other recent incidents of violence and harassment against Muslims in Indore and calls on the National Commission for Minorities to investigate and take action to prevent further attacks.
For website 211013 cjp ncm complaint over nun attacks to vice chairman (1)ZahidManiyar
The complaint alleges that on October 10, 2021 in Mau, Uttar Pradesh, two incidents occurred where Christian religious gatherings were disrupted by Hindu nationalist mobs. In one incident, two nuns were attacked, dragged to the police station and detained for hours on baseless allegations of religious conversion. In another incident, a Christian prayer service was raided and the pastor and congregants were taken to the police station. The complaint urges the National Commission for Minorities to investigate these attacks, ensure protection for religious minorities, condemn the attacks and pressure authorities to take swift action. It notes a pattern of increasing attacks on Christians in India by Hindu nationalist groups.
For website 21103 cjp ncm complaint over nun attacks to chairperson (1)ZahidManiyar
1. Citizens for Justice and Peace wrote to the National Commission for Minorities regarding two attacks on Christians in Mau, Uttar Pradesh on October 10, 2021. In the first incident, a mob attacked two nuns and their driver at a bus stand and took them to the police station. In the second incident, a mob disrupted a Christian prayer service and took the pastor and worshippers to the police station.
2. The letter requests that the Commission conduct an inquiry into the attacks, ensure protection for religious minorities, condemn the attacks and urge police to take action, and issue guidelines for dealing with communally motivated attacks. It argues that such attacks violate constitutional rights and aim to subjugate minority communities through fear.
The document is a response letter from the All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP) regarding the draft EIA Notification 2020. The key points made in the letter are:
1) The AIUFWP demands a complete withdrawal of the draft EIA Notification 2020 as it weakens environmental protections and public participation in decision making.
2) The draft was released during a national lockdown without proper accessibility or consideration of forest communities who will be most impacted.
3) Weakening environmental regulations could exacerbate future pandemics by further damaging nature.
4) The draft favors industries and projects over environmental protection by reducing scrutiny and exempting many from public hearings and consent requirements.
The applicant Maulana Fazlul Karim Qasimi was arrested in August 2021 for a Facebook post expressing the view that the Taliban in Afghanistan are not terrorists. The applicant's lawyer argued that the court had granted bail to someone in a similar case for expressing such an opinion. While reviewing the case diary, the court found nothing incriminating against the applicant beyond the Facebook post. Given the lack of other evidence, the court doubted if the post alone constituted a cognizable offense. Therefore, the court directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond, finding further custody unnecessary in this case.
The document is a 3-page court order from the Gauhati High Court regarding a bail application filed by Maqbool Alam, who was charged with several offenses including praising a terrorist organization on Facebook. The court heard arguments from Alam's lawyer and the public prosecutor. Upon reviewing the Facebook posts and finding that they did not require further custodial interrogation, the court granted bail to Alam subject to furnishing a bond and ensuring he does not interfere with the investigation.
Kerala hc order d rajagopal-v-ayyappan-anr-402210ZahidManiyar
This document summarizes two criminal revision petitions filed in the High Court of Kerala against judgments from lower courts. The lower courts had found police officers guilty of assaulting a complainant while he was in custody. The police officers argue on appeal that the lower courts erred in not requiring sanction from the state government before prosecuting public servants. The High Court examines the evidence and finds that the injuries occurred while the complainant was in police custody, supporting his allegation that police assaulted him at the police station lockup. Medical evidence also supports the complainant's version of events. The High Court dismisses the criminal revision petitions filed by the police officers.
The Kashmiri Pandit Sangarash Samiti (KPSS) wrote a letter to the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir regarding the security of non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits and Hindus living in the Kashmir Valley. KPSS has submitted communications over the past year requesting a meeting about this issue, but their requests have been ignored. Over the past 10 days, intelligence reports indicate prominent Kashmiri Pandit/Hindu businessmen will be targeted, and one was killed on October 5th. KPSS warns that if another Pandit/Hindu is killed due to administrative and security failures, they will file a petition with the International Human Rights Commission and launch a signature campaign against the administration for neglect
Lakhimpur kheri press statement from ct_us_06102021ZahidManiyar
The Central Trade Unions strongly condemned the killing of farmers protesting in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. They demanded the resignation of the Minister of State for Home and stringent punishment for the culprits. The trade unions also condemned the police for preventing opposition leaders and union leaders from visiting the families of the deceased. They reiterated their support for farmers in their struggle against the farm laws.
This document summarizes a court order from a Public Interest Litigation case in the State of Uttar Pradesh, India. The order lists several related cases to be heard together on October 22nd. It notes that two specific cases were not listed as directed in a previous order and threatens action against the responsible registry officer. It also directs the respondents to provide the petitioner's counsel a copy of the counter affidavit filed in connected writ petitions.
The document discusses two writ petitions related to prison overcrowding and conditions in Madhya Pradesh. It summarizes the suggestions provided by an amicus curiae to improve prison conditions, which include establishing women's prisons, borstal schools for youth offenders, mental health services, vocational training programs, healthcare facilities, sanitation infrastructure, educational opportunities, and recreational activities for inmates. The court acknowledges the urgent need for prison reforms and decongesting the prisons in the state.
04062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
Acolyte Episodes review (TV series) The Acolyte. Learn about the influence of the program on the Star Wars world, as well as new characters and story twists.
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
1. H
igh
C
ourtofH
.P.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 2001 of 2020
Date of Decision: Nov 11 , 2020
Rohit Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
No.
For the petitioner: Mr. Piyush Verma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Addl. AG, Mr. Ram Lal
Thakur, Asstt. AG & Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law
Officer.
COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
Anoop Chitkara, Judge. (oral)
A boy aged 20 years, who is incarcerating upon his arrest for alluring and
raping a minor girl, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail on the
grounds that the family of the girl forced her to lodge a false complaint to break
their love affair.
2. Based on a complaint, the police arrested the petitioner on Nov 1, 2020, in FIR
No. 195 of 2020, dated 01.11.2020, registered under Sections 363, 366A & 376 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 4 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offices, Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act, in Police
Station Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-
bailable offences.
FACTS:
3. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that the father of the victim
informed the Police Station Theog on Nov 1, 2020, regarding allurement of her
daughter by the petitioner vide a written complaint. He informed the police that his
daughter, who is aged 16 years, has been allured by the petitioner Rohit Sharma
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 01:50:40 :::HCHP
2. H
igh
C
ourtofH
.P.
2
on 29th
October, 2020 at 3.30 p.m. His daughter stayed with him up to 31st
October,
2020 and he also committed rape on her. However, in the evening of 31st
October,
2020, he dropped her back. Based on such information the police registered the FIR
mentioned above.
4. During investigation the victim informed the police that she knew petitioner
Rohit for the last three – four months and was in touch with him through Facebook
as well as phone. She also informed that two-three weeks ago, petitioner had
visited her home and had taken her to Primary School Kandi where in the corridor
they had indulged in coitus. She further informed the police that at 9 a.m. on 29th
October, 2020, Rohit called her and told her to accompany him for two – three
days. Upon this at 3.20 p.m. she left home and informed her cousin that she is
going out with Rohit. After walking for four – five kilometers, Rohit met her and
then he took her over his bike to the house of his relative. On 30th
October, 2020
they participated in a marriage where the victim stayed with him where he
indulged in sexual intercourse with her. On 31st
October, 2020 when Rohit received
phone call from his mother then he dropped her back.
5. The petitioner's criminal history relating to the offences prescribing sentence
of greater than seven years of imprisonment or when on conviction, the sentence
imposed was more than three years: The contents of the petition and the status
report do not reveal any criminal history.
6. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of
guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and his family.
7. While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the State is
that if this Court grants bail, such order must be subject to conditions, especially of
not repeating the criminal activities.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
8. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565,
(Para 30), a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must
enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or
refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2)
SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member bench of Supreme Court held that the persons
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 01:50:40 :::HCHP
3. H
igh
C
ourtofH
.P.
3
accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail, if the Court concerned
concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against
him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its
satisfaction for the need to release such persons on bail, in the given fact situations.
The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application, and the
Courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and
a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC
2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule may
perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances
suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other
troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by
the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. It is true that the
gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course
of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the
heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court in Para 16,
held that the delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the
negative criteria necessitating that course. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of
bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that
discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner
and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict
as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.
9. Pre-trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the offense's
heinous nature, terms of the sentence prescribed in the statute for such a crime,
probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, criminal
history of the accused, and doing away with the victim(s) and witnesses. The Court
is under an obligation to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard
the interests of the victim, accused, society, and State.
10. The conduct of the victim clearly points out that she had initially gone with
the petitioner up to Primary School and after having coitus with him did not reveal
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 01:50:40 :::HCHP
4. H
igh
C
ourtofH
.P.
4
the fact to anyone and despite that after two – three weeks of her own voluntarily
accompanied him. Although, she could not have consented for sexual intercourse as
well as leaving custody of her custodian but for deciding the bail, her conduct is
sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner.
11. An analysis of entire evidence does not justify further incarceration of the
accused, nor is going to achieve any significant purpose. Without commenting on
the merits of the case, the stage of the investigation and the period of incarceration
already undergone would make out a case for bail.
12. The possibility of the accused influencing the course of the investigation,
tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing
justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative conditions and stringent
conditions.
13. Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject
to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the
contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.
14. Following the decision of this Court in Abhishek Kumar Singh v. State of
HP, Cr.MP(M) No. 1017 of 2020, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR
mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand only
(INR 10,000/-), and shall either furnish two sureties of a similar amount to the
satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ilaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/the
Court exercising jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station where FIR is
registered, or the aforesaid personal bond and fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten thousand
only (INR 10,000/-), made in favour of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Judicial
Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., from any of the banks where the stake of
the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private banks, e.g., HDFC Bank,
ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the clause of automatic renewal of
principal, and liberty of the interest reverting to the linked account. Such a fixed
deposit need not necessarily be made from the account of the petitioner. If such a
fixed deposit is made manually, then the original receipt has to be deposited. If made
online, then the copy attested by any Advocate has to be filed, and the depositor shall
get the online liquidation disabled. It shall be total discretion of the petitioner to
choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. During the trial's pendency, it shall
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 01:50:40 :::HCHP
5. H
igh
C
ourtofH
.P.
5
be open for the petitioner to apply for substitution of fixed deposit with surety bonds
and vice-versa. Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, if any, the entire
amount of fixed deposit along with interest credited, if any, shall be
endorsed/returned to the depositor(s). The Court shall have a lien over the deposits
until discharged by substitution, and otherwise up to the expiry of the period
mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973. The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be
deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions
of this bail order:
(a) The petitioner to give security to the concerned Court(s) for attendance.
Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to delay the
trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court, on the
issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall attend the
trial on each date, unless exempted, and in case of appeal, also promise to
appear before the higher Court, in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.
(b) The attesting officer shall mention on the reverse page of personal bonds,
the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number(s),
WhatsApp number (if any), email (if any), and details of personal bank
account(s) (if available).
(c) The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called by the
Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer. Whenever the investigation takes
place within the boundaries of the Police Station or the Police Post, then the
petitioner shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM. The
petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree methods, indecent language,
inhuman treatment, etc.
(d) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages
as may be required, and in the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the
prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted by the present order.
(e) The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any
inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the
Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to
dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to
tamper with the evidence.
(f) Once the trial begins, the petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 01:50:40 :::HCHP
6. H
igh
C
ourtofH
.P.
6
the trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court, on the
issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall attend the
trial on each date, unless exempted.
(g) In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the
concerned Court may serve the accused through E-Mail (if any), and any
instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any). [Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ
Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July 10, 2020].
(h) The concerned Court may also inform the accused about the issuance of
bailable and non-bailable warrants through the modes mentioned above.
(i) In the first instance, the Court shall issue summons and may send such
summons through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail.
(j) In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified
date, then the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants, and to enable the
accused to know the date, the Court may, if it so desires, also inform the
petitioner about such Bailable Warrants through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-
Mail.
(k) Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, then the
concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable Warrants to procure the petitioner's
presence and send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a period for which
the concerned Court may deem fit and proper to achieve the purpose.
(l) In case of non-appearance, then irrespective of the contents of the bail
bonds, the petitioner undertakes to pay all the expenditure (only the principal
amount without interest), that the State might incur to produce him before such
Court, provided such amount exceeds the amount recoverable after forfeiture
of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of Sections 446 & 446-A of
CrPC. The petitioner's failure to reimburse the State shall entitle the trial Court
to order the transfer of money from the bank account(s) of the petitioner.
However, this recovery is subject to the condition that the expenditure incurred
must be spent to trace the petitioner alone and it relates to the exercise
undertaken solely to arrest the petitioner in that FIR, and during that voyage,
the Police had not gone for any other purpose/function what so ever.
(m) The petitioner shall intimate about the change of residential address and
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 01:50:40 :::HCHP
7. H
igh
C
ourtofH
.P.
7
change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, within thirty
days from such modification, to the Police Station of this FIR, and also to the
concerned Court.
(n) The petitioner shall abstain from all criminal activities. If done, then
while considering bail in the fresh FIR, the Court shall take into account that
even earlier, the Court had cautioned the accused not to do so.
(o) Considering the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, the petitioner should stay far away from the place
of occurrence while on bail - (Vikramsingh v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458).
(p) The petitioner shall neither stare, stalk, make any gestures, remarks,
call, contact, message the victim, either physically, or through phone call
or any other social media, nor roam around the victim's home. The
petitioner shall not contact the victim.
(q) The petitioner shall surrender all firearms along with ammunitions, if
any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within 30 days
from today. However, subject to the provisions of the Indian Arms Act, 1959,
the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back, in case of acquittal in
this case.
(r) In case of violation of any of the conditions as stipulated in this order, the
State/Public Prosecutor may apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial
and also after that in terms of Section 437-A of the CrPC.
(s) During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats the offence or
commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is seven years or more,
then the State may move an appropriate application for cancellation of this bail.
15. The learned Counsel representing the accused and the Officer in whose
presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions
of this bail order to the petitioner, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi or
English.
16. In case the petitioner finds the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental,
human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 01:50:40 :::HCHP
8. H
igh
C
ourtofH
.P.
8
modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before
this Court, and after taking cognizance, even before the Court taking cognizance or
the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify
or delete any condition.
17. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the present case, in
connection with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing bail bonds in the terms
described above.
18. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or
the investigating agency, from further investigation in accordance with law.
19. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
20. The SHO of the concerned Police Station or the Investigating Officer shall
arrange to send a copy of this order, preferably a soft copy, to the complainant and
the victim, at the earliest. In case the victim notices stalking or any violation of this
order, she may either inform the SHO of the concerned Police Station or write to the
Trial Court or even to this Court.
21. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the
accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.
The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications,
if any, stand closed.
Copy Dasti.
(Anoop Chitkara),
Judge.
Nov 11 , 2020 (PK)
::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2020 01:50:40 :::HCHP