1. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking compensation for their illegal detention from October 12-21, 2020 in connection with a land dispute case.
2. Counter affidavits were filed by the four respondents. The respondent no. 1 (State Government) admitted mistakes were made and circulars were issued on January 30-31, 2021 to correct procedures for submitting police reports under Sections 107/116 of the CrPC.
3. The Court said it will not issue further directions as long as the new circulars are strictly implemented across Uttar Pradesh. It found the detention of the petitioners was arbitrary and a clear breach of their fundamental rights.
This document is an order from the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan regarding a petition filed by Nanuram Saini and Vinod Kumar. It summarizes that the petitioners were previously granted anticipatory bail in a 2003 case by the High Court. However, the magistrate has since issued non-bailable arrest warrants for the petitioners, refusing to convert them to bailable warrants. The High Court order analyzes relevant case law and determines that the magistrate's actions violated the High Court's previous anticipatory bail order and shows a lack of understanding of criminal law. It directs that a copy be sent to the Registrar regarding the magistrate's conduct.
6 month waiting period in Mutual Divorce Not Mandatory JudgmentSatish Mishra
Finally all those distressed couples who don't want to see each other any longer there is a relief and that too by apex court. Supreme Court has finally in Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur has cleared that 6 month waiting period is not mandatory but discretionary in the hands of district judge.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding whether filing an appeal automatically stays the execution of a High Court judgment.
(1) The case involved a land dispute between two brothers that was determined by a Magistrate's Court and then revised by the High Court. The petitioner appealed the High Court's judgment to the Court of Appeal.
(2) There were conflicting views on whether an appeal automatically stays execution. The Court examined this issue and relevant precedents. It determined that under the Primary Courts Procedure Act, an appeal does not automatically stay execution of a High Court judgment issued in revision of a determination under the Act.
(3) The Court found the prior cases relied too heavily on applic
U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson's Oct. 17 rulingHonolulu Civil Beat
This document is a court order granting a motion for a temporary restraining order to prohibit enforcement of sections of Executive Order 3 (EO-3). The order summarizes the background of EO-3 and previous executive orders restricting entry from certain countries. It finds that EO-3, like the previous orders, likely exceeds presidential authority and engages in unconstitutional nationality-based discrimination. On this basis, the court grants the motion to restrain enforcement of EO-3 until further review can be conducted.
1. The case was registered against 5 accused from the USA - Ahmed Binadullah Ali, Khushida Yusuf, Mohd. Jamal, Rashida Binty Usup Ali, and Yu Sup for various offenses under the Epidemic Diseases Act, Disaster Management Act, and IPC for violating Covid-19 restrictions while being in Delhi in March 2020.
2. The prosecution examined 56 witnesses and relied on documents to prove the charges. The accused denied the charges and knowledge of the restrictions.
3. The prosecution argued that ingredients of the offenses were proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court had to determine if restrictions were adequately communicated and if accused had knowledge of them
The defendant appealed an order that corrected his sentence by extending his probation period from 5 to 20 years and adding GPS monitoring conditions. The Appeals Court affirmed, finding that the resentencing judge acted within their discretion to fashion an appropriate individualized sentence in light of the vacated community parole supervision for life condition from the original plea agreement. While the defendant's probation was increased, the overall punishment was not, as he was now subject to a defined 20-year supervision period rather than lifetime supervision. The new sentence maintained the original intent of lengthy post-release oversight while providing the defendant additional procedural protections.
This chapter discusses criminal grounds for removal from Canada for permanent residents and foreign nationals. It can involve convictions for serious or other criminality under Canadian law. Serious criminality generally refers to offences punishable by 10 years or more or where a sentence of over 6 months was imposed. Other criminality involves lesser offences. Only Canadian convictions can form the basis for removal, and the classification of the offence as indictable or summary is also important. The burden is on the Minister to prove grounds for removal, using a reasonable grounds to believe standard. Appeals may be limited for certain serious crimes resulting in 2+ years imprisonment.
The Supreme Court of India was hearing a special leave petition filed by Mariyam Khatoon against a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court that had granted relief to 10 of the 11 people convicted of a crime. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, noting that since most convicted people were granted relief, there was no reason to entertain the petition from the original complainant. The Court requested the High Court to expedite any pending appeals in the case and dispose them off within 6 months.
This document is an order from the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan regarding a petition filed by Nanuram Saini and Vinod Kumar. It summarizes that the petitioners were previously granted anticipatory bail in a 2003 case by the High Court. However, the magistrate has since issued non-bailable arrest warrants for the petitioners, refusing to convert them to bailable warrants. The High Court order analyzes relevant case law and determines that the magistrate's actions violated the High Court's previous anticipatory bail order and shows a lack of understanding of criminal law. It directs that a copy be sent to the Registrar regarding the magistrate's conduct.
6 month waiting period in Mutual Divorce Not Mandatory JudgmentSatish Mishra
Finally all those distressed couples who don't want to see each other any longer there is a relief and that too by apex court. Supreme Court has finally in Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur has cleared that 6 month waiting period is not mandatory but discretionary in the hands of district judge.
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding whether filing an appeal automatically stays the execution of a High Court judgment.
(1) The case involved a land dispute between two brothers that was determined by a Magistrate's Court and then revised by the High Court. The petitioner appealed the High Court's judgment to the Court of Appeal.
(2) There were conflicting views on whether an appeal automatically stays execution. The Court examined this issue and relevant precedents. It determined that under the Primary Courts Procedure Act, an appeal does not automatically stay execution of a High Court judgment issued in revision of a determination under the Act.
(3) The Court found the prior cases relied too heavily on applic
U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson's Oct. 17 rulingHonolulu Civil Beat
This document is a court order granting a motion for a temporary restraining order to prohibit enforcement of sections of Executive Order 3 (EO-3). The order summarizes the background of EO-3 and previous executive orders restricting entry from certain countries. It finds that EO-3, like the previous orders, likely exceeds presidential authority and engages in unconstitutional nationality-based discrimination. On this basis, the court grants the motion to restrain enforcement of EO-3 until further review can be conducted.
1. The case was registered against 5 accused from the USA - Ahmed Binadullah Ali, Khushida Yusuf, Mohd. Jamal, Rashida Binty Usup Ali, and Yu Sup for various offenses under the Epidemic Diseases Act, Disaster Management Act, and IPC for violating Covid-19 restrictions while being in Delhi in March 2020.
2. The prosecution examined 56 witnesses and relied on documents to prove the charges. The accused denied the charges and knowledge of the restrictions.
3. The prosecution argued that ingredients of the offenses were proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court had to determine if restrictions were adequately communicated and if accused had knowledge of them
The defendant appealed an order that corrected his sentence by extending his probation period from 5 to 20 years and adding GPS monitoring conditions. The Appeals Court affirmed, finding that the resentencing judge acted within their discretion to fashion an appropriate individualized sentence in light of the vacated community parole supervision for life condition from the original plea agreement. While the defendant's probation was increased, the overall punishment was not, as he was now subject to a defined 20-year supervision period rather than lifetime supervision. The new sentence maintained the original intent of lengthy post-release oversight while providing the defendant additional procedural protections.
This chapter discusses criminal grounds for removal from Canada for permanent residents and foreign nationals. It can involve convictions for serious or other criminality under Canadian law. Serious criminality generally refers to offences punishable by 10 years or more or where a sentence of over 6 months was imposed. Other criminality involves lesser offences. Only Canadian convictions can form the basis for removal, and the classification of the offence as indictable or summary is also important. The burden is on the Minister to prove grounds for removal, using a reasonable grounds to believe standard. Appeals may be limited for certain serious crimes resulting in 2+ years imprisonment.
The Supreme Court of India was hearing a special leave petition filed by Mariyam Khatoon against a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court that had granted relief to 10 of the 11 people convicted of a crime. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, noting that since most convicted people were granted relief, there was no reason to entertain the petition from the original complainant. The Court requested the High Court to expedite any pending appeals in the case and dispose them off within 6 months.
This document provides details regarding the case of Lalu Prasad vs. State through CBI, Ranchi 2003 Cr.L.J. It discusses:
1) The facts of the case involving charges of corruption against Lalu Prasad Yadav and others related to siphoning government funds while they were chief ministers of Bihar.
2) Lalu Prasad and others applied for amalgamation or joint trial of six related cases pending in Jharkhand courts. The key issue was whether the offenses were committed as part of a single conspiracy.
3) Provisions of Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to persons who may be charged jointly are discussed in the context of the application for
- The petitioner was detained in prison for over 14 years after being acquitted by a court. He filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking release and compensation for his illegal detention.
- The Supreme Court of India noted that the petitioner's detention after acquittal was unjustified and that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life and liberty, would be meaningless if the court could not order compensation for violations of fundamental rights.
- The court ordered the state government of Bihar to pay interim compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the petitioner for his unlawful incarceration of over 14 years, in addition to the Rs. 5,000 already paid. However, the petitioner could still
The document is a judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench regarding a contempt proceeding initiated against Anupkumar M. Kumre, the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur. The court initiated contempt proceedings against Kumre for selectively applying a precedent regarding the release of prisoners on emergency parole, refusing parole to 35 eligible prisoners while granting it to 6 ineligible ones. Additionally, Kumre was accused of making misleading statements in affidavits filed with the court regarding certain prisoners' eligibility for parole. Over the course of several hearings and affidavits filed, the court found contradictions in Kumre's statements and determined he had arbitrarily exercised his powers, warranting contempt proceedings.
This document is a bill introduced in the US House of Representatives on December 2, 2014 to impose sanctions on Russia and provide additional assistance to Ukraine. Key points:
- It proposes sanctions on Russian entities involved in the defense sector like Rosoboronexport and those assisting Syria.
- It allows sanctions on foreign persons significantly investing in Russian energy projects or withholding natural gas from European countries.
- Sanctions could include restrictions on US export-import bank assistance, government contracts, arms/dual-use exports, and financial transactions.
- The bill also aims to increase military and other assistance for Ukraine's government.
13.04.2020 detention center and jail releasesabrangsabrang
This document summarizes proceedings in the Supreme Court of India regarding the release of prisoners from overcrowded prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. It discusses applications for intervention and modification of previous court orders related to releasing certain categories of prisoners on parole or interim bail. The court heard arguments from various parties and issued directions regarding testing prisoners for COVID-19, quarantining any released prisoners who test positive, ensuring social distancing during prisoner transportation, and applying previous orders to other detention facilities. The court also reduced the period of detention for declared foreigners to be eligible for release from 3 to 2 years.
This document amends the Foreigners Act of 1964 by making several changes. It allows state governments or district collectors to constitute tribunals to hear appeals regarding foreigner status, instead of only the central government. It updates a reference to the Citizenship Rules of 1956 to refer instead to the Citizenship Rules of 2009. It establishes new procedures for appeals to be filed and heard by the designated tribunals.
This document provides details of a court case in the Gauhati High Court regarding the operation of detention centers for foreigners/illegal migrants awaiting deportation or adjudication in Assam. It summarizes Supreme Court guidelines that such persons must be held in appropriate facilities outside of prisons that provide basic amenities like electricity, water, hygiene, and medical care. The government of India has communicated to states that a sufficient number of detention centers meeting these standards must be set up and maintained, and can involve renting private buildings temporarily if needed. The document establishes parameters for the proper operation of detention centers in accordance with Supreme Court directives.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding an appellant who was denied default bail after being charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court determined that the 180-day period to file charges under this Act had expired, so the appellant was entitled to default bail. It allowed the appeal and granted default bail to the appellant subject to the trial court's conditions.
Gauhati hc display 2021-08-20t114832872-1-398963ZahidManiyar
This document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding several writ petitions filed regarding detention centers in Assam. It summarizes that the state has requested additional time to complete construction of a new detention center in Matia, Goalpara to consolidate detainees from various existing centers. While the state originally said construction would be complete by September 2021, it now requests 45 additional days. The court grants this additional time and orders the state to submit an updated status report on the construction and consolidation progress in 45 days.
The Chief Justice's Court heard a criminal writ petition filed by Nadeem against the State of U.P. and others. The Court extended an interim order dated December 18, 2020 until further orders and scheduled the petition for a fresh hearing on January 15, 2021. The respondents were directed to file a counter to the writ petition and supply a copy to the petitioner's counsel in the meantime.
The Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 Proposes Major Reforms Jacob Sapochnick
Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Marco Rubio of Florida and Chris Coons of Delaware have introduced the Immigration Innovation (I2, or I Squared) Act of 2013 which seeks to increase the H-1B quota, enhance the portability of existing H-1Bs, increase the number of employment-based green cards and allow U.S. students (especially STEM) to obtain green cards faster.
Vietnam has signed visa exemption agreements with 55 countries that exempt citizens of those countries who hold certain types of passports from needing a visa when traveling to Vietnam. The document lists each country Vietnam has such an agreement with and provides details on the types of passports that are exempt from visas and typical maximum lengths of stays allowed without a visa. The agreements generally exempt diplomatic and official passport holders from visas and in some cases also exempt ordinary passport holders for short-term stays.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
Justice must always prevail
Our solution is the key
Never give in, never give up
Until our leaders must agree
Compromise is not an option
If we truly want to be free
- Larry Pinsky
The Appellant And His Father Were Charged Umsdhillon72
The appellant and his father were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for adulterating chili powder. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the father's acquittal but allowed the state's appeal regarding the inadequacy of the appellant's sentence, enhancing it. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal. It held that: (1) High Courts still have suo moto powers of revision to enhance sentences under the Code of Criminal Procedure; (2) the state's appeal against the inadequate sentence was valid; and (3) the High Court could not alter the conviction to impose a graver sentence.
This document provides discovery materials to the defendants in a criminal case involving charges related to exporting aircraft parts to Iran. It includes:
1) CDs and images of computer data seized from the defendants containing emails and files.
2) Reports of post-arrest interviews of the two defendants.
3) Notification that physical documents and items seized can be inspected by the defendants, and copies of documents ordered.
4) A request for reciprocal discovery from the defendants and commitment to provide ongoing discovery required by law, including Brady and Giglio materials.
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
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 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 order concerns bail applications in two criminal cases (Mis. Cr. Case Nos. 2206/2021 and 2213/2021) arising from a common order by a Sessions Judge denying bail. The cases relate to a comedy show organized on January 1, 2021 during which allegedly objectionable remarks were made against Hindu deities and a political leader, hurting religious sentiments. The prosecution claims video evidence supports the allegations. The applicants claim the allegations are false and the content did not intend to hurt sentiments. After considering the facts and arguments from both sides, the Court reserves its order.
This document is a declaration form to be filled by an employee of an organization. It requests personal details of the insured employee and their family members. It also requests contact information of the employer. The form is to be submitted free of cost to the concerned branch office within 10 days of appointment along with two passport size photographs. Filling false information can lead to legal action.
This document provides details regarding the case of Lalu Prasad vs. State through CBI, Ranchi 2003 Cr.L.J. It discusses:
1) The facts of the case involving charges of corruption against Lalu Prasad Yadav and others related to siphoning government funds while they were chief ministers of Bihar.
2) Lalu Prasad and others applied for amalgamation or joint trial of six related cases pending in Jharkhand courts. The key issue was whether the offenses were committed as part of a single conspiracy.
3) Provisions of Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to persons who may be charged jointly are discussed in the context of the application for
- The petitioner was detained in prison for over 14 years after being acquitted by a court. He filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution seeking release and compensation for his illegal detention.
- The Supreme Court of India noted that the petitioner's detention after acquittal was unjustified and that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life and liberty, would be meaningless if the court could not order compensation for violations of fundamental rights.
- The court ordered the state government of Bihar to pay interim compensation of Rs. 30,000 to the petitioner for his unlawful incarceration of over 14 years, in addition to the Rs. 5,000 already paid. However, the petitioner could still
The document is a judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench regarding a contempt proceeding initiated against Anupkumar M. Kumre, the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur. The court initiated contempt proceedings against Kumre for selectively applying a precedent regarding the release of prisoners on emergency parole, refusing parole to 35 eligible prisoners while granting it to 6 ineligible ones. Additionally, Kumre was accused of making misleading statements in affidavits filed with the court regarding certain prisoners' eligibility for parole. Over the course of several hearings and affidavits filed, the court found contradictions in Kumre's statements and determined he had arbitrarily exercised his powers, warranting contempt proceedings.
This document is a bill introduced in the US House of Representatives on December 2, 2014 to impose sanctions on Russia and provide additional assistance to Ukraine. Key points:
- It proposes sanctions on Russian entities involved in the defense sector like Rosoboronexport and those assisting Syria.
- It allows sanctions on foreign persons significantly investing in Russian energy projects or withholding natural gas from European countries.
- Sanctions could include restrictions on US export-import bank assistance, government contracts, arms/dual-use exports, and financial transactions.
- The bill also aims to increase military and other assistance for Ukraine's government.
13.04.2020 detention center and jail releasesabrangsabrang
This document summarizes proceedings in the Supreme Court of India regarding the release of prisoners from overcrowded prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. It discusses applications for intervention and modification of previous court orders related to releasing certain categories of prisoners on parole or interim bail. The court heard arguments from various parties and issued directions regarding testing prisoners for COVID-19, quarantining any released prisoners who test positive, ensuring social distancing during prisoner transportation, and applying previous orders to other detention facilities. The court also reduced the period of detention for declared foreigners to be eligible for release from 3 to 2 years.
This document amends the Foreigners Act of 1964 by making several changes. It allows state governments or district collectors to constitute tribunals to hear appeals regarding foreigner status, instead of only the central government. It updates a reference to the Citizenship Rules of 1956 to refer instead to the Citizenship Rules of 2009. It establishes new procedures for appeals to be filed and heard by the designated tribunals.
This document provides details of a court case in the Gauhati High Court regarding the operation of detention centers for foreigners/illegal migrants awaiting deportation or adjudication in Assam. It summarizes Supreme Court guidelines that such persons must be held in appropriate facilities outside of prisons that provide basic amenities like electricity, water, hygiene, and medical care. The government of India has communicated to states that a sufficient number of detention centers meeting these standards must be set up and maintained, and can involve renting private buildings temporarily if needed. The document establishes parameters for the proper operation of detention centers in accordance with Supreme Court directives.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding an appellant who was denied default bail after being charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Court determined that the 180-day period to file charges under this Act had expired, so the appellant was entitled to default bail. It allowed the appeal and granted default bail to the appellant subject to the trial court's conditions.
Gauhati hc display 2021-08-20t114832872-1-398963ZahidManiyar
This document is an order from the Gauhati High Court regarding several writ petitions filed regarding detention centers in Assam. It summarizes that the state has requested additional time to complete construction of a new detention center in Matia, Goalpara to consolidate detainees from various existing centers. While the state originally said construction would be complete by September 2021, it now requests 45 additional days. The court grants this additional time and orders the state to submit an updated status report on the construction and consolidation progress in 45 days.
The Chief Justice's Court heard a criminal writ petition filed by Nadeem against the State of U.P. and others. The Court extended an interim order dated December 18, 2020 until further orders and scheduled the petition for a fresh hearing on January 15, 2021. The respondents were directed to file a counter to the writ petition and supply a copy to the petitioner's counsel in the meantime.
The Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 Proposes Major Reforms Jacob Sapochnick
Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Marco Rubio of Florida and Chris Coons of Delaware have introduced the Immigration Innovation (I2, or I Squared) Act of 2013 which seeks to increase the H-1B quota, enhance the portability of existing H-1Bs, increase the number of employment-based green cards and allow U.S. students (especially STEM) to obtain green cards faster.
Vietnam has signed visa exemption agreements with 55 countries that exempt citizens of those countries who hold certain types of passports from needing a visa when traveling to Vietnam. The document lists each country Vietnam has such an agreement with and provides details on the types of passports that are exempt from visas and typical maximum lengths of stays allowed without a visa. The agreements generally exempt diplomatic and official passport holders from visas and in some cases also exempt ordinary passport holders for short-term stays.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
Justice must always prevail
Our solution is the key
Never give in, never give up
Until our leaders must agree
Compromise is not an option
If we truly want to be free
- Larry Pinsky
The Appellant And His Father Were Charged Umsdhillon72
The appellant and his father were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for adulterating chili powder. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the father's acquittal but allowed the state's appeal regarding the inadequacy of the appellant's sentence, enhancing it. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal. It held that: (1) High Courts still have suo moto powers of revision to enhance sentences under the Code of Criminal Procedure; (2) the state's appeal against the inadequate sentence was valid; and (3) the High Court could not alter the conviction to impose a graver sentence.
This document provides discovery materials to the defendants in a criminal case involving charges related to exporting aircraft parts to Iran. It includes:
1) CDs and images of computer data seized from the defendants containing emails and files.
2) Reports of post-arrest interviews of the two defendants.
3) Notification that physical documents and items seized can be inspected by the defendants, and copies of documents ordered.
4) A request for reciprocal discovery from the defendants and commitment to provide ongoing discovery required by law, including Brady and Giglio materials.
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals of Md. Misher Ali against an order declaring him a foreigner. [The Court summarized that] the Foreigner's Tribunal and High Court orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as notice was not served at Ali's permanent residence, which was known to authorities. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case back to the Foreigner's Tribunal to allow Ali an opportunity to respond consistent with principles of natural justice.
1) The Supreme Court of India heard a petition from the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court regarding management of COVID-19.
2) The Supreme Court acknowledged the efforts of High Courts but noted some directions may not be implementable. It cited examples where the High Court directed ambulances and facilities that would be impossible to provide across the entire state.
3) While appreciating the High Court's intentions, the Supreme Court held some directions were incapable of being implemented and should be treated as observations rather than binding orders. The State was not exempted from making efforts to provide facilities.
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 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 order concerns bail applications in two criminal cases (Mis. Cr. Case Nos. 2206/2021 and 2213/2021) arising from a common order by a Sessions Judge denying bail. The cases relate to a comedy show organized on January 1, 2021 during which allegedly objectionable remarks were made against Hindu deities and a political leader, hurting religious sentiments. The prosecution claims video evidence supports the allegations. The applicants claim the allegations are false and the content did not intend to hurt sentiments. After considering the facts and arguments from both sides, the Court reserves its order.
This document is a declaration form to be filled by an employee of an organization. It requests personal details of the insured employee and their family members. It also requests contact information of the employer. The form is to be submitted free of cost to the concerned branch office within 10 days of appointment along with two passport size photographs. Filling false information can lead to legal action.
1. The investigating agency (CBI) filed an application seeking direction from the court for the accused to provide the password of the computer system and Tally software seized during investigation.
2. The CBI argued they have the right to seek this information as part of a fair investigation, while the accused argued it would violate their right against self-incrimination.
3. The court examined the historical background of the right against self-incrimination and the investigating agency's powers, based on previous Supreme Court rulings. It acknowledged the need to balance individual rights and fair investigation.
This document summarizes a court order regarding an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The applicant, Dr. Kafeel Ahmad Khan, challenged the cognizance order dated July 28, 2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Aligarh regarding a case filed against him. The applicant's counsel argued that as per Section 196 of the CrPC, prior sanction from the central/state government or district magistrate is required to prosecute offenses under Sections 153A, 153B, 505(2) and 109 of IPC, and no such sanction was obtained in this case before cognizance was taken. The court order discusses previous court judgments which have held that taking cognizance without
The document discusses a letter sent by Dr. Alok Umre, Secretary of TEAM VHA, to the Commissioner of Police in Nashik. The letter requests the police to sensitize personnel about recent High Court decisions regarding FIRs and complaints filed against doctors. It notes the Court upheld a 2010 Government Resolution requiring complaints be reviewed by committees including doctors before police action. The letter asks for information on Nashik's valid review committee and warns any actions without committee scrutiny will be illegal. It encourages adhering to the 2010 resolution and Court orders to avoid unnecessary harassment of doctors.
Sc judgement regarding bail in perarivalan vs st. of t.n.sabrangsabrang
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition filed by A.G. Perarivalan. It notes that Perarivalan has been convicted of various terrorism-related offenses and sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment. After over 32 years of incarceration, the Court granted him bail, citing his good conduct during previous paroles and his acquisition of educational qualifications in prison. However, he must report monthly to a local police station and obtain court permission to leave the state. The legal matters regarding his conviction and a mercy petition will be heard further on a future date.
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.
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.
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.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Jharkhand regarding a writ petition filed after targeted violence broke out in Ranchi on June 10, 2022. The court directed the State of Jharkhand to file an affidavit answering several questions about the violence, including whether they had intelligence reports about protests, why casualties occurred if they had reports, details of arrests made, and the status of investigations into cases filed. The court also directed the state to respond to allegations made in the petition and adjourned the case to a later date to allow time for the affidavit to be filed given the tense situation in Ranchi.
The Supreme Court allowed a writ petition challenging detention of a petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980. The petitioner was detained based on two FIRs related to obstructing revenue officials and threatening them, but the Court found no evidence to justify detention under the Act, which is meant for anti-social and anti-national elements that pose a grave threat to national security, public order or essential services. The Court quashed the detention proceedings and directed that the petitioner be released from jail immediately.
न्यायालय को सुल्तान के आचरण पर संदेह करने का कोई कारण नहीं मिला और साथ ही उसके न्याय से भागने की कोई संभावना नहीं थी, फिर भी जमानत की शर्तों के रूप में सुल्तान की संचार विधियों और गतिविधियों पर कड़े प्रतिबंध लगाए गए।
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Mohammed Zubair regarding several FIRs registered against him in Uttar Pradesh. In its order, the Court granted Zubair interim bail in six FIRs, transferred the investigation of these FIRs from the UP Police to the Delhi Police, and disbanded the SIT investigating the cases. The Court also stated that any new FIRs regarding the same subject matter would also be investigated by the Delhi Police and covered by the interim bail. Zubair was ordered to be released from custody by 6 pm that day upon filing personal release bonds of Rs. 20,000 for each FIR.
This document provides details about a housing scheme offered by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) including scheme name, codes, location, types of flats, estimated area and cost of flats, eligibility criteria, and process for application and payment. Key points are:
1) The scheme involves registration for allotment of flats in Madhuban-Bapudham, Kaushambi & Vaishali schemes of GDA.
2) Flats of different sizes are available with estimated areas and costs provided in Table 1.
3) Eligible applicants must be Indian citizens over 18 years of age.
4) The application form can be obtained from listed bank branches for Rs. 500 and
The High Court of Gujarat quashed four detention orders issued by the District Magistrate of Amreli under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act against four petitioners for allegedly being "property grabbers". The Court found that the detaining authority erred in treating the petitioners' activities as prejudicial to public order, as it was a private property dispute. The Court also noted that the justification provided by the state for issuing the detention orders - that the petitioners would continue illegal activities with advocate help - was untenable. The rule was made absolute and the detention orders were quashed.
Madras Hgh Court RSS rally order Nov 4.pdfsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes contempt petitions filed against respondents for disobeying a court order directing permission be granted for processions and public meetings. It discusses arguments from petitioners and respondents. The court found intelligence reports referenced old cases and was not sufficient grounds for rejection. However, 6 sensitive areas were recently impacted so permission was rightly rejected there for now. For other areas, the court found no reason to reject requests so contempt petitions will proceed. The court upheld the importance of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly in a democracy.
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 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 does not have jurisdiction to extend time for UAPA offenses. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to default bail as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed time period. The Court directed the appellants be released on bail and for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.
Petition before Prime Minister of India dated 23.08.2017Om Prakash Poddar
WITH A PRAYER TO IMPEACH THE CONCERNED JUDGES FOR ISSUING NON BAIL ABLE WARRANT (N. B. W) DATED 08TH SEPT 2011 UNDER SECTION 83 CR.PC. IN CRIMINAL CASE COMPLAINT (P) NO 5591 OF 2013 AT SDJM COURT NO. 16 BEGUSARAI BIHAR AND KEEPING IT SECRET SINCE THEN EVEN AFTER THE ON RECORD INTIMATION TO THE CJM DIVISION BEGUSARAI IN THE SAME MATTER CRIMINAL CASE COMPLAINT (P) NO. 9P OF 2010 DATED 03RD MARCH 2011 AND AFTER THE SETTLEMENT OF THE SAME MATTER BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN MATT APPL 7 OF 2012 ON 23RD JULY 2013
WE ARE LIVING AS REFUGEE IN DELHI BECAUSE OF FORCED DISLOCATION BY THE STATE
THE PETITION WITHOUT SOFT COPY OF ANNEXURES AS HARD COPY OF SAME ANNEXURES FROM P 1 TO P 18 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE HON'BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA WITH THE PETITION Sl. No. P1/ B/ 0108170053 ON 27TH JULY 2017
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.
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/
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.
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.
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>.
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.
1. 1
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16386 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Verma And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Ashwini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted
by Sri S.K. Pal, learned Government Advocate and Sri Ali Murtuza,
learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following
reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to give compensation to the petitioners in lieu of illegal detention
from 12.10.2020 to 21.10.2020 in connection with Case Crime No.624 of 2020,
State vs. Shiv Kumar Verma and another, under Section 151, 107 and 116 Cr.P.C.,
Police Station Rohania, District Varanasi.”
3. In compliance to the order dated 27.1.2021, counter affidavit
dated 2.2.2021 by the respondent no.1, counter affidavit dated
31.1.2021 by the respondent no.2, counter affidavit dated 1.2.2021 by
the respondent no.3 and counter affidavit dated 1.2.2021 by the
respondent no.4 have been filed today, which all are taken on record.
In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 27.1.2021, Sri Tarun
Gauba, Secretary Home, U.P. Lucknow is personally present in Court.
4. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that there was some
dispute relating to ancestral property between the petitioners and their
family members. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it has been stated
that some tiff arose between the petitioners and other family members,
namely, Rajendra Prasad, Shiv Kumar Verma and Raj Kumar Verma
2. 2
regarding partition of ancestral land and in apprehension of breach of
public peace, the police arrested the petitioners under Section 151
Cr.P.C. on 8.10.2020. A Challani Report dated 8.10.2020 was
submitted by the Sub Inspector, Police Station Rohania, District
Varanasi to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Varanasi under
Section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C., which is in printed form and merely
name of the petitioners and others, name of village and “land dispute”
have been written by ink in the aforesaid Challani Report. On receipt
of the Challani Report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate registered the
case as Case No.624 of 2020 (State vs. Shiv Kumar Maurya and
others) and passed the following order on 8.10.2020:
Ekq0l0 624 lu~ 2020
ljdkj cuke f'kodqekj ekS;Z vkfn
/kkjk&515@107@116 n0iz0la0
Fkkuk&jksgfu;k
08-10-2020
vkt Fkkuk/;{k jksgfu;k tuin okjk.klh }kjk vUrxZr /kkjk
151@107@116 n0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr pkykuh fjiksVZ ljdkj cuke f'kodqekj
ekS;Z vkfn izLrqr fd;k x;k vfHk;qDrx.k ds tekur gsrq cU/k i= o 'kiFk
i= o eqpydk nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;kA
vr% vfHk;qDrx.k ds tekur gsrq cU/k i= o eqpydk ds miyC/krk
rd vfHk;qDrx.k dks fu:} tsy fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh fnukad 21-10-2020
dks is'k gksA
v0g0
lR;izfrfyfi 08-10-2020
5. It appears that on 12.10.2020 the petitioners submitted personal
bond and other papers but the respondent no.3 has not released them
and instead, under the pretext of verification, directed the file to be
placed on 21.10.2020. The order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the
respondent no.3 is reproduced below:
3. 3
12-10-2020
i=koyh is'kA vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk tekur izkFkZuk i= o cU/k i=@
eqpydk nkf[ky fd;k x;k cU/k i= esa layXu tekunkjh dks [krkSuh dk
eqY;kadu gsrq rglhynkj jktLo dks izsf"kr o jkt if=d vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh
vfHk;qDrx.ks dk pfj= izek.k i= nks izfr vr% i=koyh fnukad 21-10-2020
dks is'k gksA
v0g0
lR;izfrfyfi 12-10-2020
6. Thereafter, on 21.10.2020 the petitioners were released.
Aggrieved with the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents and
illegal detention, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition
praying for the relief as afore-quoted.
7. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit dated 2.2.2021, the
respondent no.1 has stated that the State Government has taken
corrective action in the matter vide letters/circulars dated 30th
January,
2021 and 31st
January, 2021. The aforesaid letters/circulars dated 30th
January, 2021 and 31st
January, 2021 are reproduced below:
Letter/Circular dated 30th
January, 2021
QSDl@bZ&esy@ egRoiw.kZ
la[;k& 159@6&iq0&11&21&05 fjV@2021
izs"kd]
r:.k xkck]
lfpo]
mRrj izns'k 'kkluA
lsok esa]
iqfyl egkfuns'kd]
mRrj izns'kA
x`g¼iqfyl½vuqHkkx&11 y[kuÅ% fnukad%30 tuojh]2021
fo"k;%& fdzfeuy ¼fel0½ fjV ;kfpdk la[;k& 16386@2020] f'ko dqekj
oekZ o vU; cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU; esa ikfjr ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds
6. 6
4- izR;sd pkykuh fjiksVZ ;fn fdlh pkSdh izHkkjh vFkok mi
fujh{kd }kjk rS;kj dh tkrh gS rks ml ij lEcfU/kr izHkkjh fujh{kd
vFkok Fkkuk/;{k }kjk ijh{k.k dj viuh Li"V ,oa rF;kRed fVIi.kh
vafdr djus ds mijkUr gh vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr dh tk;sA
3& mijksDr lEcU/k esa vfer tkuh dsl la[;k&10759@2020 fnukad 17-06-
2020 esa fufgr funsZ'kksa dk v{kj'k% vuqikyu djk;k tkuk visf{kr gSA
4& vr% vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ifjr
vkns'k fnukad 13-01-2021 ds vuqdze esa mijksDr fn'kk&funsZ'kksa dk dMkbZ ls
vuqikyu djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA =qfV u gksA
layXud%;FkksifjA
¼,p0lh0voLFkh½
iqfyl egkfuns'kd
mRrj izns'kA
8. From the facts briefly noted above and the counter affidavit of
respondent no.1, it stands admitted that the police authorities are
arbitrarily and illegally submitting Challani Reports under Sections
107/116 Cr.P.C. Since the respondent no.1 has taken steps to correct
the mistakes and illegalities, therefore, we do not propose to issue any
further direction in that regard, except that the afore-quoted Circulars
dated 30th
January, 2021 and 31st
January, 2021 shall be strictly
implemented in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
9. In the counter affidavit dated 1.2.2021, the respondent no.3 has
stated in paragraph 5 and 8 that “the petitioners submitted the
applications through their counsel that they are ready for furnishing
personal bonds as well as bail bonds, therefore, they may be released
on bail and the answering respondent directed the concerned Tehsildar
to verify the revenue records produced by the sureties and on
verification the petitioners shall be released on 21.10.2020 on bail.”
10. In his counter affidavit, the respondent no.3 has tried to justify
his arbitrary action and clear breach of statutory duty cast upon him as
well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of
7. 7
the Constitution of India. In this regard, it would be appropriate to
refer to the provisions of Section 107, 111 and 116 of the Code of the
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which are reproduced below:
“107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.
(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is
likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or
to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace
or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided,
require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to
execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such
period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive
Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or
disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is
within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the
peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as
aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
“111. Order to be made. When a Magistrate acting under section 107,
section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any
person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in
writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the
amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force,
and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.”
“116. Inquiry as to truth of information.
(1) When an order under section Ill has been read or explained under
section 112 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is
brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a
summons or warrant, issued under section 113, the Magistrate shall
proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has
been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.
(2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the
manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence
in summons- cases.
(3) After the commencement, and before the completion, of the inquiry
under sub- section (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate
measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or
disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or
for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the
person in respect of whom the order under section 111 has been made
to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or
maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may
detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of
execution, until the inquiry is concluded: Provided that-
(a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section
108, section 109, or section 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for
maintaining good behaviour;
(b) the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to
the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of
8. 8
their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in the order
under section 111.
(4) For the purposes of this section the fact that a person is an habitual
offender or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large
without security hazardous to the community may be proved by evidence
of general repute or otherwise.
(5) Where two or more persons have been associated together in the
matter under inquiry, they may be dealt with in the same or separate
inquiries as the Magistrate shall think just.
(6) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of
six months from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not
so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall, on the expiry of
the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded
in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs: Provided that where any
person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding
against that person, unless terminated earlier, shall stand terminated on the
expiry of a period of six months of such detention.
(7) Where any direction is made under sub- section (6) permitting the
continuance of proceedings, the Sessions Judge may, on an application
made to him by the aggrieved party, vacate such direction if he is satisfied
that it was not based on any special reason or was perverse.”
11. Section 107 Cr.P.C. requires the Magistrate receiving the
information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace
or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may
probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public
tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such
person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond,
with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not
exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit. Perusal of the order
dated 8.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.3 would reveal that there
is no such satisfaction recorded by the respondent no.3. The aforesaid
order dated 8.10.2020 would further reveal that the respondent no.3
has not required the petitioners to show cause that why they should
not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties. Thus, the
respondent no.3 has committed clear breach of mandate of Section
107 Cr.P.C.
12. Section 111 Cr.P.C. provides that when a Magistrate acting
under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it
necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he
9. 9
shall make an order in writing, setting forth (i) the substance of the
information received, (ii) the amount of the bond to be executed, (iii)
the term for which it is to be in force, and (iv) the number, character
and class of sureties (if any) required. These necessary ingredients of
Section 111 Cr.P.C. are totally absent in the order dated 8.10.2020
passed by the respondent no.3. Thus, it is evident on record that the
respondent no.3 has acted arbitrarily and illegally.
13. It would further be relevant to note that admittedly the
petitioners have submitted personal bond on 12.10.2020 although the
order passed by the respondent no.3 dated 8.10.2020 does not specify
the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to
be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number,
character and class of sureties, if any, required. Despite submission of
personal bond and other papers on 12.10.2020 by the petitioners
before the respondent no.3, they were not released by the respondent
no.3 and that too against its own order dated 8.10.2020 that the
petitioners shall be detained till presentation of personal bond/bond.
Non release of the petitioners by the respondent no.3 even after
submission of personal bond/bond and other papers, is a clear breach
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by the respondent no.3
which resulted in illegal detention of the petitioners at least since
12.10.2020 to 21.10.2020.
14. The facts, afore-noted, leave no room of doubt that the
respondent no.3 has acted arbitrarily and not only failed to discharge
his duty cast upon him under Section 107 and 111 Cr.P.C. but also
committed breach of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Such type of instances need to be stopped by the State Government.
15. Learned Additional Advocate General and the Secretary, Home,
U.P. Lucknow jointly state that the State Government shall develop a
mechanism and shall also issue appropriate guidelines so as to ensure
that such instances may not repeat again. They further state that the
10. 10
State Government shall consider to grant monetary compensation to
the petitioners for breach of their fundamental rights under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
16. Considering the joint request of the learned Additional
Advocate General and the Secretary Home, U.P. Lucknow, as afore-
noted, we grant four weeks time to the State Government to take
appropriate action in terms of the statement, as afore-noted and file an
affidavit of compliance on the next date fixed.
17. On the next date fixed, the respondent no.3 shall also file his
personal affidavit explaining his conduct, as briefly noted above.
18. Put up in the additional cause list on 3.3.2021 for further
hearing.
19. Personal appearance of Secretary Home, U.P. Lucknow, is
exempted until further orders.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021
SP