In this judgment of Chhattisgarh High court, IPC 498A was held to be a continuing offence as the allegations of mental cruelty happened over a telephone call, at a place which actually does not have jurisdiction. Funny.
Anyways this was turned around by hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014. Go here to read judgment.
In this set of judgments from Hon’ble Supreme Court, the importance of sticking to the topic of relevance of the case while writing/delivering judgments.
In Jan 29th judgment, Markandey Katju J went into a irrelevant topic of situation in UP due to unavailability of anticipatory bail in his concurring judgment and thereafter issued directions to send a copy of his judgment to a slew of government entities.
In Feb 21st judgment, another 3 judge bench headed by CJI K G Balakrishnan has held that,
From Para 12,
When this Court renders judgments, it does so with great care and responsibility. The law declared by this Court is binding on all courts. All authorities in the territory of India are required to act in aid of it. Any interpretation of a law or a judgment, by this Court, is a law declared by this Court. The wider the power, more onerous is the responsibility to ensure that nothing is stated or directed in excess of what is required or relevant for the case, and to ensure that the Court’s orders and decisions do not create any doubt or confusion in regard to a legal position in the minds of any authorityor citizen, and also to ensure that they do not conflict with any other decision or existing law. Be that as it may.
The judiciary is placing peculiar conditions to grant bail, obviously due to the peculiar circumstances that are presented by accused these days.
One such condition is
4) He shall not apply for return of his passport till conclusion of trial.
In line with Gurbaksh Singh case here, AP High Court also delivered this judgment holding that
From Para 21,
It is also required to notice that an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case may be can be filed only after the arrest of the accused person or detained without a warrant. It would not be possible for any accused to file any application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC while the operation of the order under Section 438 Cr.PC is in force. Under those circumstances, the question of directing the accused person to apply for and obtain a regular bail even while the directions issued in exercise of the power under Section 438 Cr.PC are in operation may become difficult and such application may not be maintainable.
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, then held,
In Para 22,
On an analysis and a close reading of the decisions referred to above, the following propositions would emerge:
(1) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.PC may direct the release of the accused person in a given case only for a specific period and direct the accused person to apply for and obtain regular bail. This would necessarily mean that the operation of the order would come to an end immediately after the specified time and the accused person has to necessarily surrender or get arrested so as to enable the accused person to file an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case maybe.(2) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and discretion under Section 438 of the Code can restrict the operation of directions issued under the said provision at the initial stage and extend the same until further orders;
(3) The Court exercising the power and jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code is entitled to issue necessary directions directing release of the accused person in the event of his or her arrest without specifying any period; and
(4) The power and jurisdiction of this Court or Court of Session under Section 438 of the Code is not limited or circumscribed in any manner whatsoever requiring to limit the operation of the directions to release the accused person in the event of his or her arrest.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
In this contempt judgment, hon’ble Delhi High Court held that making false statements before court under oath, can be viewed as contempt in face of court and that it is entitled in law to invoke its contempt jurisdiction.
Even though reports were submitted by two Local Commissioners (is a person appointed by the Court in pursuance of its powers vested under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and is normally authorised to examine witnesses, conduct local and scientific investigations and/or sale of property, perform a ministerial act, examine accounts, partition of property and execute any other order as directed by the Court) respondent no.2/ defendant no.2-contemnor made contrary statement.
The lies were: about the duration of operation of his shop from the suit premises as well as the type of the goods that respondent no.2/ defendant no.2-contemnor dealt in.
Hon’ble Apex Court held that
In CrPC 301,
The role of the informant or the private party is limited during the prosecution of a case in a Court of Session. The counsel engaged by him is required to act under the directions of public prosecutor.
And, in CrPC 302,
As far as Section 302 CrPC is concerned, power is conferred on the Magistrate to grant permission to the complainant to conduct the prosecution independently.
Rule
when a complainant wants to take the benefit as provided under Section 302 CrPC, he has to file a written application making out a case in terms of J.K. International (supra) so that the Magistrate can exercise the jurisdiction as vested in him and form the requisite opinion.
In this order, Hon’ble Apex Court has referred a matter regarding the valid time period of an anticipatory bail, to larger bench. The landmark pronouncement came on 29 January 2020 by a 5-judge bench here. The landmark precedent from an 1980 constitution bench is available here.
It was earlier mentioned in Supreme Court on 19 September, 2018 in the court of 3 judges bench led by CJI and was directed to be listed after a week before appropriate Bench as per roster, subject to removal of defects, if any.
Recently, it was heard by 5-judge bench on 23 October, 2019 and the judgment was reserved, after the arguments were concluded.
The final status of the case [Case No. SLP(Crl) No. 007281 – 007282 / 2017], is available here.
An detailed analysis is available here.
In this judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that,
Highlight
Should the operation of an order passed under Section 438(1) be limited in point of time? Not necessarily. The Court may, if there are reasons for doing so, limit the operation of the order to a short period until after the filing of an F.I.R. in respect of the matter covered by the order. The applicant may in such cases be directed to obtain an order of bail under Section 437 or 439 of the Code within a reasonably short period after the filing of the F.I.R. as aforesaid. But this need not be followed as an invariable rule. The normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time.
Another set of clarifications here:
This should be the end of the matter, but it is necessary to clarify a few points which have given rise to certain misgivings.
Section 438(1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has “reason to believe” that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression “reason to believe” shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere ‘fear’ is not ‘belief’, for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non- bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. Section 438(1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individual’s liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely.
Secondly, if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court of Session it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out for granting such relief. It cannot leave the question for the decision of the Magistrate concerned under Section 437 of the Code, as and when an occasion arises. Such a course will defeat the very object of Section 438.
Thirdly, the filing of a First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power under Section 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an F.I.R. is not yet filed.
Fourthly, anticipatory bail can be granted even after an F.I.R. is filed, so long as the applicant has not been arrested.
Fifthly, the provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked after the arrest of the accused. The grant of “anticipatory bail” to an accused who is under arrest involves a contradiction in terms, in so far as the offence or offences for which he is arrested, are concerned. After arrest, the accused must seek his remedy under Section 437 or Section 439 of the Code, if he wants to be released on bail in respect of the offence or offences for which he is arrested.
Citation: [1980 AIR 1632], [1980 SCR (3) 383], [(1980) 2 SCC 565], [AIR 1980 SC 1632], [(1980 Cri LJ 1125)],
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173889445/
Index of all Bail Matters is here.
In this judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that,
Highlight
The result of our discussion and the case-law in this: An order for release on bail made under the proviso to s.167(2) is not defeated by lapse of time, the filing of the chargesheet or by remand to custody under s. 309(2). The order for release on bail may however be cancelled under s.437(5) or s. 439(2). Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice, or abuse of the liberty granted to him. The due administration of justice may be interfered with by intimidating or suborning witnesses, by interfering with investigation, by creating or causing disappearance of evidence etc. The course of justice may be evaded or attempted to be evaded by leaving the country or going underground or otherwise placing himself beyond the reach of the sureties. He may abuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in similar or other unlawful acts. Where bail has been granted under the proviso to s.167(2) for the default of the prosecution in not completing the investigation in sixty days, after the defect is cured by the filing of a chargesheet, the prosecution may seek to have the bail cancelled on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and that it is necessary to arrest him and commit him to custody. In the last mentioned case, one would expect very strong grounds indeed.
As per CrPC 302, a petitioner can request per permission of magistrate to conduct and lead the prosecution case, instead of a advocate. Read more here.
Similarly, per Advocates Act Section 32, any person who is not as advocate, can appear in a particular case. Read more here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 491 access attempts in the last 7 days.
