Instead of a Private complaint, the victim should have filed a police complaint u/s 166A IPC as is was inserted into the CrPC book via 2013 Amendment (Due to 2012 Nirbhaya incident)
Citations : 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 517
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127137628/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ef19a8f3321bc37150ee24f
Supreme Court held that, even though there is police excess, it was connected to (meaning part of) the investigation of a criminal case.
From Para 10,
10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the
performance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previous sanction of the State Government. The High Court missed this crucial point in the impugned order.
Citations : [2015 AIR SC 2022], [2015 AD SC 5 462], [2015 AJR 4 624], [2015 AKR 2 755], [2015 CCR SC 2 350], [2015 CRIMES SC 4 214], [2015 JLJR 3 123], [2015 NCC 2 243], [2015 OLR SC 2 409], [2015 PLJR 3 204], [2015 RCR CRIMINAL 2 1001], [2015 SCJ 8 265], [2015 UC 2 867], [2015 SCC 12 231], [2016 SCC CRI 1 82], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 390], [2015 SCR 5 534], [2015 GUJ LH 2 359], [2015 AIC 151 175], [2015 ECRN 3 176], [2015 CRI LJ 2589], [2015 ALT CRL SC 3 143]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4302712/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b295e561097e45a4e2d0
This is the Majority judgment from this 3-judge bench regarding the applicability of sanction from government to prosecute a public servant u/s 197 CrPC.
Dissenting opinion by Justice C.K. Thakker:
Citations :
2006 AIOL 1722006 SUPREME 4 6452006 SCC CRI 2 3582006 SCC 4 5842006 JT 4 342006 AIR SC 16952006 BOMCR CRI SC 2 4512006 AIR SC 15992006 SCALE 3 4142006 AIR SCW 1695
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1179931/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1212531/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae38e4b014971141334c
Earlier Calcutta High Court Judgment here.
Citations : [2002 ACR SC 2 1768], [2001 ALD CRI 1 902], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 1512], [2001 JT SUPPL SC 1 32], [2001 PLJR 4 2], [2001 RLW SC 2 262], [2001 SCALE 4 205], [2001 SCC 5 7], [2001 SCR 3 766], [2001 UC 2 177], [2001 AIR SC 0 2125], [2001 SCC 0 2198], [2001 SUPREME 4 236], [2001 BOMCR CRI SC 721], [2001 SLT 4 259], [2001 SRJ 6 373], [2001 CCR 2 281], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 2 681], [2002 CRJ 1 632], [2001 AD SC 5 28], [2001 BLR 4 356], [2001 CRLJ SC 2897], [2001 JT 32], [2001 AIR SC 2198],
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/522373/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad93e4b0149711411bdb
This is so cute judgment where in to get Anticipatory Bail, husband has to pay maintenance to knife in Divorce matter husband filed. Aaa baile mujhe maat…
Here is the jewel of the Order given at Patna High Court.
This is precisely why I advocate quick disposal of civil matters… A helpful compilation is here.
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of new passport may be barred in sec 6 of Passports Act 1967, but not renewal.
11. A reading of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act indicates that, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if a criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant in India . However, the said provision does not provide for refusing to issue a passport for a person who intends to travel back to India . Hence, reading of this provision clearly indicates that it is applicable only for issuing a fresh passport and not for renewal of passport and this view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ashok Khanna –vs- Central Bureau of Investigation (supra). Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 has held that the Passport Authority can refuse to issue passport or an endorsement for visiting any country but nowhere in the provision it is mentioned that even for renewal of passport, the Authority can refuse to renew the passport.
This is a while-color crime from Kadapa, AP from 2017, wherein the accused went to Supreme Court for Anticipatory bail.
Here is the AB dismissal order from AP High Court:
Some news about these people:
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/vijayawada/2017/jul/11/couple-held-for-duping-people-with-easy-loans-1626616.html
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/man-woman-aide-held-for-gypping-loan-seekers/articleshow/59518402.cms
(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of session, he may be released on bail, but—
(i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;
(ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of 3[a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years:
Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm:
Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper so to do for any other special reason:
Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court:
Provided also that no person shall, if the offence alleged to have been committed by him is punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or more, be released on bail by the Court under this sub-section without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor.
(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 446A and pending such inquiry, be released on bail], or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abatement of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall impose the conditions,—
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter,
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence, and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.
(4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), shall record in writing his or its reasons or special reasons for so doing.
(5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody.
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.
(7) If, at any time, after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.
Supreme Court answered this short question in this reportable case of a regular/default bail issue where Trial court and High Court imposed Rs.8,00,000/- as a deposit.
whether while releasing the appellant-accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., any condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court, could have been imposed?
From Para 9,
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the scheme and the object and purpose of default bail/statutory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact that earlier at the time of hearing of the regular bail application, before the learned Magistrate, the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit agreeing to deposit Rs.7,00,000/.
Bad Behavior has blocked 496 access attempts in the last 7 days.
