Anticipatory bail granted by Kerala High Court for offence under section 324 of IPC
Anticipatory Bail Orders
Anticipatory bail granted in cases filed under various IPC sections. The bare section is here.
Supreme Court of India
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc Vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial; No FIR necessary for grant of AB]
- Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs N.C.T. Delhi and Anr on 23 Mar 2001 [Guidelines for grant of bail even in a Non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life]
- Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014 [Landmark Judgment: No automatic arrest in all cases with punishment less than or up to 7 years]
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 December, 2010 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial]
- Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 1 Sep 2015 [Ground for grant of AB]
- Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 15 May, 2018
- Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020 [Landmark Judgment: AB valid until end of Trial]
- Pradeep Ram Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 1 Jul 2019 [In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.]
- Dr. Rajesh Pratap Giri Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 05 Mar 2021 [No need to go and obtain Regular Bail after filing of Charge sheet by IO, if Anticipatory Bail was granted earlier]
- Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022 [No Payments when allowing Anticipatory Bail]
- Monirul Islam Vs The State of West Bengal on 01 Dec 2022 [AB cannot passed for a fixed time period]
- Bimla Tiwari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 Jan 2023 [Criminal Proceedings cannot be converted into Recovery Proceedings]
- Kunal Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 05 Dec 2023 [A condition to take wife to home is untenable while granting anticipatory bail]
Allahabad High Court
- Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 13 Feb 2023 [Relies on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia; FIR is not a pre-condition to grant AB, but Reasonable Apprehension Of Being Arrested has to be explained]
Bombay High Court
Kerala High Court
District Courts
Index of all Bail matters is here.
Koshore Vs State of Kerala on 16 February, 2016
Anticipatory bail granted under section 438 of IPC against an offence under section 324 of IPC (voluntarily causing harm).
Bail conditions
1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays in between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months.
2) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences during the bail period.
3) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.
4) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.
Prashant Pandurang Hingane And Vs Manisha Prashant Hingane on 20 December, 2017
Relatives residing separately are set free from the proceedings of Domestic violence case by Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011
This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the knife filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and approached the Hon’ble court with unclean hands and committed fraud upon the Hon’ble.
Key (Tricky) Highlight around applicability of CrPC but not Sec 468 CrPC:
24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 508.
Citations : [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 90], [2012 CRLJ SC 309], [2012 ALLMR CRI SC 369], [2011 CRIMES SC 4 51], [2011 SUPREME 6 181], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 129], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 1], [2011 SCC 12 588], [2011 SLT 6 434], [2011 AIOL 597], [2011 SCALE 9 295], [2011 JT 11 177], [2012 SCC CRI 2 614], [2011 ACR SC 3 3544], [2011 DMC SC 3 7], [2011 KCCR 4 3283], [2011 KLJ 3 40], [2011 KLT SN 4 69], [2011 NCC 2 544], [2011 SCR 10 557], [2011 UC 3 1758], [2012 SCC CIV 2 742]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1337239/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af03e4b014971141557d
Another previous judgment cited in this judgment is available here.
Index DV case laws is here.
Meghmala & Ors Vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors on 16 August, 2010
Fraud on Hon’ble Court is always viewed seriously.
Smt. Sureshta Devi Vs Om Prakash on 7 February, 1991
In this Supreme Court judgment, a mutual consent Divorce decree is set aside because knife says consent was obtained under pressure and threat.
Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya & vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2016
Very nice judgment from High Court of Gujarat, wherein income (alimony given by Husband is income for tax purposes) hiding Knife is charged under sections 195 and 340 of CrPC.
Para 4,
The trial Court, on an application Exh.88 under sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by respondent No.2 on 13.5.2016, recorded the evidence on both the sides and directed the Registrar of Family Court to file an application before the Pradyuman Nagar police station under sections 191,192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
Para 8,
Learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has urged that it is very rare that the Court would go out of the way to hold that perjury has been committed and, in the instant case, it is quite obvious from the record that she had not revealed the fact that she is given permanent alimony of the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- so also all her income is shown under the Income-Tax Act.
Para 10,
Admittedly, this order has arisen on account of the affidavit given by the petitioner, wherein she declared herself a housewife having no source of income. However, she has admitted in her cross-examination that she has obtained Rs.4 lakhs from her previous husband at the time of taking divorce from him.
Para 16,
It also held that the bar would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in section 195(1)(b)(ii) have been committed with respect to a document, after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. If said offence is committed or given in evidence in Court, no complaint by Court would be necessary and a private complaint would be maintainable.
Para 18,
this Court has no reason to interfere as often it is found that the litigants coming before the Court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence.
Para 19,
Laws which are otherwise in favour of the distressed wife when are sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trial Court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution.
Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009
Nice judgment quashing order of Magistrate who took cognizance of case wherein the allegations in the complaint are vague and general in nature, which was filed after about nine years of the marriage!
From Para 4,
the complaint is against Rajesh in the sense that the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over the ornaments and clothes to his parents lest they are lost in the way. On reaching to Delhi when the ornament were asked back by the complainant, they were not returned back.
There is undoubtedly some reference to the present appellants, but what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused.
…
Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometime given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us more is that even in paragraph 10 of the complaint where the complainant says that she asked for her clothes and ornaments which were given to the accused and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent..
From Para 5,
In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/339579/
Citations: [(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286], [2009] INSC 1632, [AIR 2009 SC(Supp) 2950]
V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993
Another landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court clearly defining the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition.
Citations : [1994 UJ SC 1 70], [1994 AIR SC 710], [1993 SCALE 4 488], [1994 SCC 1 337], [1994 BLJR 1 1], [1994 PUNJ LR 1 603], [1994 GLH 1 186], [1994 AN LT SC 1 14], [1994 BOMLR 96 360], [1994 ALT SC 1 14], [1994 ALR 23 77], [1994 LW 1 27], [1994 CIVILCC 558], [1993 JT SC 6 428], [1993 SUPP SCR 3 796], [1993 SUPPSCR 3 796], [1994 UJ 1 70], [1994 AIR 710]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1848484/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac91e4b014971140f2cb#20
The Index is here.
