Bail Case Laws

Search Results
Total No. of Records found: 420

2001 SCCL.COM 200(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 320 of
2001)
Smt. Akhtari Bi Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided
on 3/22/2001.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Honble Mr.
Justice R.P. Sethi.
Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 21 -- fundamental right
-- speedy justice -- prolonged delay in disposal of trials and appeals in
criminal cases for no fault of accused confers right to apply for BAIL -- if
appeals not disposed of within 5 years, for no fault of the convicts, such
convicts may be released on BAIL on conditions deemed fit and proper
by Court.

2001)
Prahlad Singh Bhati Appellant Vs. N.C.T., Delhi & Anr.
Respondents, decided on 3/23/2001.
Justice R.P. Sethi.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 437 -- BAIL -grant of -- in cases where offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life which is triable exclusively by a court of Sessions,
the Magistrate may, in his wisdom, refrain to exercise the powers of
granting the BAIL and refer the accused to approach the higher courts
unless he is fully satisfied that there is no reasonable ground for
believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life.

2001)
Uday Mohanlal Acharya Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Respondent, decided on 3/29/2001.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Honble Mr.
Justice U.C. Banerjee and Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Agarwal.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 167(2) -proviso -- Indian Penal Code -- Sections 406 and 420 -- Maharashtra
Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999
-- offences under -- BAIL -- when can an accused be said to have
availed of his indefeasible right for being released on BAIL under the
Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., if a challan is not filed within
the period stipulated thereunder? -- held the accused availed of his

right on 17th August, 2000 by filing an application for being released on
BAIL and offering therein to furnish the BAIL in question -- by majority,
appeal allowed.
2000 SCCL.COM 609(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 741743 of 2000 etc. Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 271, 273, 283-315, 317-342,
343-372, 373-402 of 2000)
Abdul Karim etc. etc. Appellants Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors
etc.etc. Respondents, decided on 11/7/2000.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 321 -- applications
under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking consent of court to withdraw TADA
charges to facilitate ultimately the release of accused persons from
judicial justody so as to meet Veerappan's demands -- withdrawal from
prosecution of any person -- the Special Public Prosecutor must be
satisfied, on consideration of all relevant material, that his withdrawal
from the prosecution is in the public interest and it will not stifle or
thwart the process of law or cause injustice -- requirement of law not
satisfied hence consent under Section 321 cannot be granted -- order
under Section 321 passed by the designated Court at Chennai in the
matter of Radio Venkatesan set aside -- appeals allowed.
2000 SCCL.COM 484(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4578 of

2000 ETC.)
M.V.A.L. Quamar Appellant Vs. Tsavliris Salvage (International)
Ltd. & Ors. Respondents, decided on 8/17/2000.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee.
Subject Index: Maintainability -- of execution proceedings before High
Court of Andhra Pradesh as an executing court -- for enforcing of
foreign decree passed by the English Admiralty Court -- by attachment
and sale of vessel in question.
2001 SCCL.COM 273(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 507510 of 2001)

Muraleedharan Appellant Vs. State of Kerala Respondent,
decided on 4/18/2001.
Justice R.P. Sethi.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 438 -- anticipatory
BAIL -- Kerala Abkari Act -- Section 8 -- offence under -- provision in
pari materia with Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- offence such for which
legislature has imposed stringent restrictions even in regard to grant of

regular BAIL -- held, order of Sessions Judge, blessing the appellant
with pre-arrest BAIL order on the conclusion that the investigating
agency would not be able to collect any material to connect the
appellant with the crime, misuse of discretion conferred u/s.438, Cr.P.C.
-- appeals dismissed.

2001 with)
Puran Appellant with Shekhar and Another Appellant Vs.
Rambilas & Another Respondents and State of Maharashtra &
Another Respondents, decided on 5/3/2001.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Honble Mr.
Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 439 -- BAIL -cancellation of -- powers in respect of.
2001 SCCL.COM 450(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (Crl.) No.

1105 of 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2000)
Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath Petitioner/Appellant Vs. State of
Assam Respondent, decided on 5/10/2001.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, Honble Mr.
Justice R.P. Sethi and Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.
Subject Index: Death penalty -- question of sentence -- review sought
-- on the ground that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of
commission of the offence -- held petitioner proved to be major at the
time of commission of the offence -- sentence of death cannot be
reopened -- review petition dismissed however without prejudice to the
right of the petitioner to get the benefit under Sections 432, 433 & 433A, Cr.P.C.

1998)
State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Bharat Chaganlal Reghani
and others Respondents, decided on 7/11/2001.
Justice R.P. Sethi.
Subject Index: Contract killing -- Indian Penal Code -- Sections 302,
307 read with Sections 120B, 23, 114 -- Arms Act -- Section 3 r/w
Sections 25(1-B)(a), Section 5 r/w Section 27 -- TADA -- Sections 3(2)
(I), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5 and 6 -- offences under -- conviction and
sentence under.

2001)
Ram Prakash Pandey Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another
Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 437 -- BAIL -- a
person who has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with
life imprisonment shall not be released on BAIL unless there is no
reasonable ground for believing that the person has committed the
offence and/or there are special reasons to do so -- at this stage it
could not be said that there is reasonable ground for believing that 2nd
Respondent has not committed the offence. No special reasons for
granting BAIL have been indicated by the High Court -- order of High
Court granting BAIL cannot be sustained.
2001 SCCL.COM 668(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 907 Of

2001)
State of Madhya Pradesh Appellant Vs. Kajad Respondent,
Justice R.P. Sethi.
Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
-- Section 37 -- grant of BAIL to respondent -- accused ignoring the
provision of Section 37 of the Act -- successive BAIL applications are
permissible under changed circumstances but without the change in the
circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking
review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal
law -- held the impugned order having been passed in violation of the
provisions of the Act by ignoring the mandatory requirements of section
37 and the conditions governing the grant of BAIL under the code of
Criminal Procedure and is thus not sustainable.

Harshad S. Mehta and Ors. Appellants Vs. The State of
Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 9/6/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 --- section 6, 306
and 307 --- Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in
Securities) Act, 1992 --- Section 9 --- interpretation of --- whether the
pardon provision as contained i Sections 306 and 307 of the Code apply
or not to the proceedings before the Special Court under the Act --held the Special Court established under the Act is a Court of exclusive
jurisdiction. Sections 6 and 7 confer on that court wide powers. It is a
court of original criminal jurisdiction and has all the powers of such a
court under the Code including those of Sections 306 to 308 --- appeals
dismissed.

Joginder Singh Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and
Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code -- Sections 326, 325, 324 r/w 34 -conviction under -- remission of sentence as per notification -- held
while applying the period of remission granted by the Government
under any remission notification the period during which an accused
person was on BAIL cannot be taken into account.
2001 SCCL.COM 706(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 242 of

2001)
B.R. Kapur Petitioner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Honble Mr.
Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Honble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Honble Mrs.
Justice Ruma Pal, Honble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: [Ms. J. Jayalalitha's Case] Constitution of India -Article 164(1) r/w (4) -- Representation of People Act, 1951 -- Section 8
-- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) -Indian Penal Code -- Sections 120B and 409 -- offences under -conviction -- whether a person who has been convicted of a criminal
offence and whose conviction has not been suspended pending appeal
can be sworn in and can continue to function as the Chief Minister of a
State? -- held on the date on which the second respondent was sworn
in as Chief Minister she was disqualified, by reason of her convictions
under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences of
imprisonment of not less than two years, for becoming a member of the
legislature under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act -held a person who is convicted for a criminal offence and sentenced to
imprisonment for a period of not less than two years cannot be
appointed the Chief Minister of a State under Article 164(1) read with
(4) and cannot continue to function as such.
2001 SCCL.COM 774(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 245246 of 2000 (With W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 249, 270, 405, 421, 433-435/2000,
57 and 63-64 of 2001))
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and another Petitioners Vs. Union of
India and others Respondents, decided on 10/12/2001.

Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Honble Mr.
Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: A) Constitution of India --- Article 32 petition under
Article 32 for infraction of Article 21 --- Criminal Procedure Code --section 438 --- relief under --- maintainability of the petition under
Article 32 and secondly, an order in the nature of an anticipatory BAIL
ought to be made available to the petitioners herein by reason of the
deprivation of the liberty without there being any sanction of law --petitioners inside the prison bars --- relieving the petitioners from
unnecessary disgrace and harassment would not arise --- court did not
agree with the proposition that an accused being involved in large
number of criminal cases in different parts of the country, if is not able
to be released from custody even on getting BAIL orders in some cases,
itself would tantamount to violation of the right of a citizen under Article
21 of the Constitution. The object of Article 21 is to prevent
encroachment upon personal liberty by the Executive save in
accordance with law, and in conformity with the provisions thereof --imperative that before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty,
the procedure established by law must strictly be followed and must not
be departed from, to the disadvantage of the person affected --- it
would be a misplaced sympathy of the Court on such white-collared
accused persons whose acts of commission and omission has ruined a
vast majority of poor citizens of this country --- right of an accused to
have speedy trial is now recognised as a right under Article 21 --- the
Central Government to evolve certain formula or procedure, so that the
accused will not complain of undue harassment on account of
protraction of their cases and the persons deceived who have filed
complaints, will be satisfied with the early conclusions of the trial. B)
Constitution of India --- Article 32 --- maintainability of the petition --petitioners not entitled to any relief by reason of insufficiency of
available material on record as to infraction of Article 21.

2001)
Sukhjinder Singh Appellant Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Honble
Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 136 -- Criminal
Procedure Code -- Section 167(2) -- BAIL -- petition filed for release of
appelant on BAIL u/s. 167(2), Cr.P.C. -- rejected by Court of Magistrate
and ADJ -- also High Court not satisfied that there is any merit in the
application -- held no inclination to order release of appellant on BAIL in
exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.136 -- open to appellant to file application
for regular BAIL -- further criminal case instituted in the Court of the
ACJM, Karnal should not continue since the case relating to the same
incident is pending in the Sessions Court at Delhi and the same will
continue in accordance with law.

2001)
Shailendra Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Bihar & others
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Honble Mr. Justice
B.N. Agrawal and Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Sections 309 and 311 -examination of witnesses -- the presence of investigating officer at the
time of trial is must. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present. If
there is failure on part of any witness to remain present, it is the duty
of the Court to take appropriate action including issuance of
BAILable/non-bailable warrants as the case may be -- in a murder trial
it is sordid and repulsive matter that without informing the police
station officer-in-charge, the matters are proceeded by the Court and
by the APP and tried to be disposed of as if the prosecution has not led
any evidence -- if there is any negligence, latches or mistakes by not
examining material witnesses, the Courts function to render just
decision by examining such witnesses at any stage is not, in any way,
impaired.

2001)
State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Mrs. Bharati Chandmal
Varma @ Ayesha Khan Respondent, decided on 12/4/2001.
Justice S.N. Phukan.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 167(2) -- BAIL
-- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 -- Indian Penal
Code -- Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 420 -- offences under -held accused would be entitled to BAIL, not on the merits of the case,
but on account of the default of the investigating agency to complete
the investigation within 90 days from the date of the first remand of the
respondent.

2001)
Harjeet Singh @ Seeta Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.
Justice B.N. Agarwal.
Subject Index: Judicial discipline -- BAIL --for cancellation of the BAIL
on the ground of misrepresentation or mis-statement, the matter ought
to have been placed before the same Judge -- open to the other Judge
of the High Court to sit in appeal against the order passed by coordinate bench of the same Court.

2002)
Om Shanker Biyani Appellant Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of
Calcutta & Ors. Respondents, decided on 2/22/2002.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
and Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Customs Act -- Section 110 -- Major Port Trusts Act -Sections 58 and 59 -- Indian Contract Act -- Section 171 -- whether
principles which apply to a lien under Section 171 would also apply to
the statutory lien under Section 59 -- held the proposition that the
BAILee, who exercises a lien, is not entitled to charge rent for storage
of goods can never apply to a case where the lien is exercised for nonpayment of rent or storage charges.
2002 SCCL.COM 184(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 381

and 382 of 2002)
Ram Govind Upadhyay Appellant Vs. Sudarshan Singh & Ors.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and
Honble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
Subject Index: Bail -- Grant of BAIL though being a discretionary
order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course. Order for BAIL bereft of any
cogent reason cannot be sustained -- considerations of grant of BAIL.

2000 (with Crl. A. Nos. 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541 & 542 of 2000))
P. Ramachandra Rao Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka
Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Honble Mr. Justice Syed
Shah Mohammed Quadri, Honble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, Honble Mr.
Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Honble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Honble
Mrs. Justi.
Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 21 -- Right to Speedy
Trial -- A.R. Antulay's case upheld and reaffirmed.

2002)
K. Varadharaj Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble
Mr. Justice Bisheshwar Prasad Singh.
Subject Index: Detention -- when a person is detained under a
Detention Act, is it necessary for the detaining authority to take into
consideration any BAIL application filed by the detenu and any order
passed by a criminal court on the said application as a matter of rule, if
it is to be held that such placement of the BAIL application and the
order passed thereon is not mandatory in every case then in the facts
and circumstances of this case whether such application and orders
made thereon ought to have been placed before the detaining
authority? -- held placing of the application for BAIL and the order
made thereon are not always mandatory and such requirement would
depend upon the facts of each case -- in the present case, the fact that
the court specifically noted in the BAIL order that the Public Prosecutor
had no objection for grant of BAIL therefore the court was inclined to
grant BAIL to the appellant -- ought to have been noticed by the
detaining authority -- this is a vital fact, non-consideration of this fact
vitiates the order of detention -- detention order quashed -- appeal
allowed.

Mahant Chand Nath Yogi & Anr. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Honble
Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code section 120-B offence under -Code of Criminal Procedure section 438 anticipatory BAIL
whether the anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants could the
sustained or not held the judicial discretion exercised in granting
anticipatory BAIL is neither perverse nor erroneous based on relevant
consideration supported by reasons the High Court committed a
manifest and serious error in passing the impugned orders setting aside
the anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants appeals allowed.

2002 ETC.)
Ram Pratap Yadav Appellant Vs. Mitra Sen Yadav and anr.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Honble Mr.
Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- prayer for BAIL rejected by
Sessions Court -- granted by High Court -- previous conviction for a
heinous offence -- the order of the High Court, howsoever brief it may
be, should make it appear that the High Court while forming opinion on
prayer for BAIL was conscious of the reasons for rejection of prayer for
BAIL as assigned by the Session Court -- order of BAIL set aside.

2002)
Satish Sharma and Anr. Appellants Vs. State of Gujarat
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Honble
Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Raddi.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 169 -- if at the
stage of grant or refusal of anticipatory BAIL certain aspects of the case
are consideration but later if the investigation agency files a report
under Section 169 Cr. P.C. It is difficult to perceive that such a step
would amount to interference with the administration of justice -observations are neither justified nor called for in the case.

1993)
Bijay Kumar Mahanty Appellant Vs. Jadu @ Ram Chandra Sahoo
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Honble
Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Police Officer
disregarding the BAIL order arrested a person because case against him
is of alleged assault on one of a police official -- the case against the
appellant is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt -- held the
High Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of contempt of court -further it is not a fit case where the apology tendered at this belated
stage ought to be accepted -- regarding punishment mere sentence of
fine would not meet the ends of justice -- appeal dismissed.

2002)
Mansab Ali Appellant Vs. Irsan and Anr. Respondents, decided
on 12/13/2002.
Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Bail -- complainant challenging order granting BAIL to
the respondent-accused who is alleged to have committed the offence
of murder during the BAIL period -- judgment disapproved -- since the
Sessions trial in which the accused was enlarged on BAIL is proceeding
with expedition and major part of evidence has been recorded,
Supreme Court refrained from considering the prayer of complainant for
cancellation of BAIL -- left to the judicious discretion of the learned

Sessions Judge to continue the BAIL or cancel the same after hearing
the counsel for the prosecution and the accused.
2002 SCCL.COM 753(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 13461247 of 2002 (with CRL. A. Nos. 1348-1349/2002, 1350-1351/2002,
1352 of 2002))
M.C. Abraham and another Appellants with A.K. Dhote Appellant
with J.F. Salve and another Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra
Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- complaint lodged by
Provident Commissioner against Directors of MAPL -- despite application
for anticipatory BAIL being rejected, appellants were not arrested -held a person whose petition for grant of anticipatory BAIL has been
rejected may or may not be arrested by the investigating officer
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the
offence, the background of the accused, the facts disclosed in the
course of investigation and other relevant considerations -- there was
no justification for the High Court to direct the State to arrest the
appellants against whom the first information report was lodged, as it
amounted to unjustified interference in the investigation of the case -appeals allowed.

2003 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) 4011 of 2002))
Narcotics Control Bureau Appellant Vs. Ghashiram Kanhyalal
Solanki and another Respondents, decided on 1/17/2003.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Honble Mr.
Justice H.K. Sema.
Sections 8(c)/21/25/27/27-A and 29 41 kg. heroin recovered from
a room which was in possession of the accused under a leave and
licence agreement BAIL granted by the Bombay High Court looking
to all the facts and circumstances and the huge recovery, the High
Court has not exercised its discretion prudently and in accordance with
law BAIL cancelled accused to surrender forthwith.
2003 SCCL.COM 150(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. ......... of

2003 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5352 of 2002)(with Criminal Appeal
No....../2003 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5574/2002)(with Criminal Appeal
No....../2003 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16/2003))

Attaurrehman Abdulrehman Kureshi Petitioner Vs. State of
Gujarat Respondent, decided on 2/3/2003.
Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: A) BAIL -- granted in terms of the impugned order of
High Court -- their grievance is in respect of some of the conditions and
stipulation of automatic cancellation of BAIL without any formal order of
the Court -- on the facts and circumstances of the case, the stipulation
in the impugned order of automatic cancellation of the BAIL of the
appellants is not called for. B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
-- Sections 3, 10, 13 and 15 -- appellants prosecuted -- according to
the State they were in possession of incriminating documents -appellants stated that they were only attending the meeting of All India
Minority Education Board -- the State has not been able to show such
adverse incidents of the appellants which may disentitle them to grant
BAIL -- the appellants deserve to be enlarged on BAIL.

2002 etc. (with Crl.A. Nos. 215 of 2003 & 1361/2002))
Jameel Ahmed and another etc. Appellants Vs. State of
Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/30/2003.
Subject Index: TADA Act -- Section 15 -- confessional statement -TADA Act, 1987 -- Sections 3(3) and 6(1) -- Indian Penal Code -Section 120B -- Explosive Substances Act -- Sections 5 and 6 -conviction and sentence under -- appeal -- held contention that a
confessional statement of an accused made under Section 15 the TADA
Act can be used only to corroborate other substantive evidence
produced by the prosecution cannot be accepted -- the prosecution has
produced material which could be treated as evidence generally
corroborating Ex. P-126 which in our opinion is sufficient to establish
the guilt of A-5 -- the prosecution has failed to produce any
corroborative evidence in addition to the confessional statement of A-2
therefore by the standard adopted by us for relying on the confession of
A-2 to base a conviction on the co-accused, we find it difficult to uphold
the conviction of A-6.
2003 SCCL.COM 433(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 100 of

2002)
Kadhar Naina Ushman Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: COFEPOSA -- Section 3(1)(i) -- detention order --
delay in execution of order of detention -- it is well settled that delay in

execution of the order of detention would not by itself invalidate the
order of detention and would not show that the detaining authority is
not serious in detaining the detenu -- held no efforts were made for
nearly 3 1/2 months i.e. between 23rd October, 2001 and 7th February,
2002 to apprehend the petitioner. It is also not the case of the
respondents that any application was filed before the Magistrate either
praying for the cancellation of the BAIL or praying that the petitioner
shall not be granted exemption from personal appearance since he is
evading arrest pursuant to the order of detention -- order of detention
quashed.
2003 SCCL.COM 450(Case/Appeal No: Suo-Motu Contempt Petition

(C) No. 426 of 2002 (in I.A. No. 6, in C.A. No. 7919 of 2001))
In the matter of Anil Panjwani Vs. , decided on 5/5/2003.
Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- it is no rule of law,
and certainly not a statutory rule that a contemnor cannot be heard
unless the contempt is purged -- it would all depend on the facts and
circumstances of a given case and the nature of contempt under
enquiry which would enable the Court exercising its discretion either
way. B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Section 14 -- charge under -scurrilous attack against an eminent brother judge of ours in this Court
made through irresponsible, unfounded and reckless allegations
contained in his affidavits filed during the course of proceedings -contemnor has felt genuinely apologetic, and said so with folded hands
regretting all that has happened leading to initiation of proceedings of
contempt. He has, during the course of hearing, posed and reposed,
expressed and re-expressed his full faith in this Court and tendered
apology without any reservation -- also pleaded for permission to
withdraw such of the two affidavits filed by him containing the
objectionable averments made therein -- in the light of the facts and
circumstances enumerated above and particularly the fact that initially
he was arrested and sent to jail in connection with this contempt matter
where he was lodged for four days before being released on BAIL.
These factors, in our view, weigh in favour of accepting the request
allowing him to withdraw the objectionable affidavits, rather than to
continue with this matter and send him again to jail, though repentant,
he is, a little late undoubtedly -- request allowed -- contempt petition
disposed of.

Ghanchi Rubina Salimbhai Appellant Vs. Metubha Diwansingh
Solanki and others Respondents, decided on 7/24/2003.
Mr. Justice B. P. Singh.
Subject Index: Bail -- enlarging the accused on BAIL by the High
Court without assigning any reason -- accused charged with offences
under Sections 302, 395, 397, 147, 149, 436, 427, 188 and 120-B IPC
and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act -- since the trial court has
assigned reasons for refusing BAIL which includes availability of
material to establish prima facie case against the respondent-accused,
and looking to the gravity of the offence as also the apprehension of the
complainant as to the possibility of interference by the accused with the
investigation and threat to the prosecution witnesses in the event of
they being enlarged on BAIL, we think it would have been more
appropriate if the High Court could have at least briefly indicated the
reasons which it though entitled the respondent-accused to BAIL -- the
impugned order of the High Court should be set aside and the matter
be remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration, bearing in
mind the observations made in this order.

1999)
Munna Appellant Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Respondent, decided
on 8/27/2003.
Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 -- Section 19 -- appellant and co-accused Ravi and Rakesh @ Ravi
were convicted under Sections 392 /120-B IPC and Section 120-B IPC
and were sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the
first count and 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the second
count. Ravi accused was further convicted under Section 397 IPC and
Section 5 of TADA and was sentenced to 7 years R.I. under the first
count and 5 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the second count -- in
default of payment of fine under each count, the accused were to
undergo 3 months R.I. and all the sentences were ordered to run
concurrently -- the manner in which the crime was committed and the
manner in which the appellant escaped after jumping from the first floor
of the house clearly shows that the three witnesses got full opportunity
to see and identify him. In these circumstances, there is no reason at
all for not placing reliance upon their testimony -- the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing the case against the appellant beyond any
shadow of doubt and the learned Designated Court rightly convicted
and sentenced him -- the conviction and sentence of the appellant, as
recorded by the learned Designated Court, is affirmed. The appellant is
on BAIL. He shall surrender forthwith to undergo the sentences imposed
upon him.

1996 (with Crl. A. No. 1734 of 1996))
Augustine Saldanha Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka
Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: India Penal Code, 1860 -- Section 302 -- the High
Court has analysed the evidence in great detail, and concluded that Trial
Courts conclusions were fallacious and based on magnification of trifle
and unimportant materials, which in no way affected credibility of
prosecution version -- the High Court was, therefore, justified in holding
that Augustine Saldanha and Rocky Saldanha were responsible for the
death and injury to the deceased and PW1 respectively -- only one blow
was given in the dark night. Though it cannot be said as a rule of
universal application that whenever one below is given application of
Section 302 IPC will be ruled out and that even a single blow delivered
with a heavy or dangerous weapon on a vital part of the body would
make the offence a murder. On the peculiar facts found in the present
case, we feel and clause thirdly of Section 300 cannot be applied. The
blow was said to have been delivered with a stick and in a pitch dark
night of time in the forest surroundings of the area where it occurred. It
could not reasonably be stated with any certainty that the accused
chose that vital part of the body to inflict the injury and that the blow
was aimed without any of such specific intention could have landed on
the head due to so many other circumstances, than due to any positive
intention also -- conviction altered -- custodial sentence of eight years
would meet ends of justice. His appeal is accordingly allowed to the
indicated extent. So far as appellant Rocky Saldanha is concerned, in
view of the detailed analysis made by the High Court, we do not find
any scope for interference with his conviction or the sentence imposed.
His appeal is dismissed. The accused persons who are on BAIL, are
directed to surrender to custody to serve remainder of their sentences.

2003)
Union of India and Anr. Appellants Vs. Yusuf Razak Dhanani and
Ors. Respondents, decided on 9/9/2003.
Subject Index: Customs Act, 1962 -- Section 104 -- Code of Criminal
Procedure -- Section 438 -- application seeking anticipatory BAIL -procedure adopted by the High Court was not correct -- while deciding
the application for grant of anticipatory BAIL the investigating agency
concerned has not been given reasonable time to file its objections, this
appeal has to be allowed and the matter be remanded to the High Court
for fresh consideration after hearing both the parties -- appeal allowed.

State of Gujarat Appellant Vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh and
others Respondents, decided on 9/8/2003.
Subject Index: A) Constitution of India -- appeals arise on a certificate
granted by the Gujarat High Court under Article 134A read with Article
134(1)(c) of the Constitution in the matter of grant of BAIL to the
respondents -- appeal treated as proceeding under Article 136 of the
Constitution -- a ghastly incident took place at about 7.45 a.m. on
27.2.2002 when the Sabarmati Express was stopped near Godhra
Railway Station and a coach was set on fire resulting in death of 59
persons injuries to 48 years -- commission of offences under POTA -BAIL granted by High Court on applications -- held the respondents did
not chose to apply for BAIL before the Special Court for offences under
POTA and consequently there was no order of refusal of BAIL for
offences under the said Act. The learned Single Judge exercising powers
under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. granted them BAIL.
The order of the High Court is clearly without jurisdiction as under the
scheme of the Act the accused can only file an appeal against an order
of BAIL passed by the Special Court before a Division Bench of the High
Court and, therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. B)
POTA -- Section 34 -- BAIL -- granting of -- under POTA -- since the
respondents have not approached the Special Court for grant of BAIL to
them for offences under POTA, they should first invoke the jurisdiction
of the said Court which shall dispose of the matter expeditiously without
being influenced by any observation made by the High Court and any
party feeling aggrieved thereby will have a right to prefer an appeal
before the High Court in accordance with Section 34 of POTA.

2003)
Bharat Chaudhary and another Appellants Vs. State of Bihar and
another Respondents, decided on 10/8/2003.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 438 -- Indian Penal
Code, 1860 -- Sections 504, 498A and 406 -- Dowry Prohibition Act -Sections 3/4 -- accused of -- application for grant of anticipatory BAIL
-- rejected by the High Court -- order under challenge -- anticipatory
BAIL granted -- no restriction on the power of the courts empowered to
grant anticipatory BAIL under Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. -- the duration
of anticipation BAIL should be normally limited till the trial court has the
necessary material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the
material available before it. That is only a restriction in regard to
blanket anticipatory BAIL for an unspecified period -- judgment in
Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh does not support the extreme argument
addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent- State

that the courts specified in Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. are denuded of
their power under the said Section where either the cognizance is taken
by the concerned court or charge sheet is filed before the appropriate
Court.

1997)
M.D., Army Welfare Housing Organisation Appellant Vs.
Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. Respondent, decided on
10/8/2003.
Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Honble Mr. Justice
Brijesh Kumar and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Arbitration Act, 1940 -- Sections 30 and 33 -application filed questioning the award -- Held while upholding Claim
No. 1 of the award are of the opinion that the award of the arbitrations
in relation to Claim No. 2 must be set aside. Consequently, no interest
thereupon shall be payable.
2003 SCCL.COM 856(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 119121 of 1997 (With Crl. A. Nos. 314-316 of 1997))
Ramanand Yadav Appellant Vs. Prabhu Nath Jha and others
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 302 read with
Section 34 -- the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal. The
same is set aside. Respondents are convicted under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life. As they are on BAIL, they shall surrender forthwith to suffer
remainder of the sentence.

1997)
A. Abdul Kaffar Appellant Vs. State of Kerala Respondent,
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Sections 7, 13(1)
(d) read with Sections 201 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code -- charge
under -- conviction -- acquittal under Section 477-A -- if really the
appellant had issued a receipt to PW-1 on receiving the money, then the
raiding party would have noticed the same because they came
immediately after the money was received. Therefore, the only
conclusion available on this point is that the receipt was prepared by

the appellant after he was released on BAIL and the same is now
sought to be utilised as a defence for the money received -- the facts as
proved by the prosecution and as accepted by the two courts below
including us in this appeal, clearly prove that the appellant has
committed the offence punishable under section 477-A IPC also but for
some unacceptable reasons, the trial court came to the conclusion that
the said offence is not established -- the appellant who is on BAIL shall
surrender to the BAIL and serve out the balance of sentence.

2002 [With W.P. (Crl.) No. 89/2002, W.P. (Crl.) No. 129/2002, W.P.
(Crl.) No. 28/2003 & W.P. (Crl.) No. 48/2003])
People's Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. Petitioners Vs. Union
of India Respondent, decided on 12/16/2003.
Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 -- provisions -constitutional validity of.

2004 (with W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2003))
A.C. Razia Appellant Vs. Government of Kerala and others
Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Honble Mr. Justice P.
Venkatarama Reddi and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Writ of habeas corpus issuance of detention of
the petitioners husband, P. Mohd. Kutty under the previsions of
conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act (COFEPOSA), questioned detention order also
challenged in the High Court by way of writ petition filed under Article
226 writ petition dismissed judgment challenged in the Special
Leave Petition SLP came to be heard before G.P. Mathur and
Rajendra Babu, J. Rajendra Babu allowed the writ petition by quashing
the order of detention Mathur, J. held that the Writ Petition and SLP
were liable to be dismissed matter placed before three Judge Bench
whether there could be due application of mind on the part of the
Central Government and proper disposal of the representation in the
absence of English translated copies of documents relied on in the
detention order? majority opinion delivered by Honble Mr. Justice P.
Venkatarama Reddi on behalf of himself and Honble the Chief Justice
A perusal of the detention order would reveal that the statements of
Anodiyal Mammu, who was intercepted at the airport and that of the
detenu and the statements of all others recorded under Section 108 of
Customs Act as well as the subsequent letters retracting from the
earlier statements were referred to in the detention order elaborately
and exhaustively the contents of the letters received from the

Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the counsel for A. Mammu
have also been referred to in paras 10 and 17 the very perusal of the
detention order would give a clear picture of the incriminating material
relied upon by the detaining authority. In the circumstances, to insist on
the perusal of original or true copies of statements and other
documents referred to in the detention order would amount to insisting
on an empty formality. The constitutional guarantee does not go to that
extent thus, the only contention raised before us touching on the
validity of detention order has to be negatived. The writ petition and
Criminal Appeal are therefore dismissed.

1997 (With Crl. A. No. 657 of 1997))
Hem Raj Appellant Vs. Raja Ram and others Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Honble
Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 302 read with
Sections 34 and 114 -- conviction and sentence -- findings reversed by
the High Court -- the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the
conviction and sentence are flimsy, untenable and bordering on
perverse appreciation of evidence -- the reasons given by the High
Court in reversing the conviction are not tenable or justifiable -- the
prosecution successfully proved that the accused Raja Ram and Pappu
@ Raj Kumar fired bullets at Mota Ram and caused his death -exhortation made to kill the deceased Mota Ram is attributed to him
and that by itself is not a strong evidence to prove his complicity -accused Raja Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar are convicted for the
offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of them
is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The accused Hari Padam
is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. The accused Raja
Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar are directed to surrender to their BAIL
bonds.

2004)
Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Subject Index: Bail -- granted -- cancellation of -- when a person to
whom BAIL has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of
justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens
witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth
investigation or trial, BAIL granted can be cancelled. Rejection of BAIL
stands on one footing, but cancellation of BAIL is a harsh order because

it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly
resorted to -- the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for
passing the order of cancellation of BAIL granted earlier -- no merit in
this appeal which is accordingly dismissed -- the trial was in progress
when BAIL was cancelled. It would be appropriate if the trial Court
completes the trial as early as practicable, if not already completed,
keeping in view the mandate of Section 309 of the Code. If appellant
makes any fresh application for BAIL, the same, it goes without saying,
shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

2004 SLP (Crl.) No. 4810 of 2003)
Sanjay Bhagwani Appellant Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Bail -- anticipatory granting of -- when the dispute
with the husband could not be resolved, she, taking all ornaments and
clothes, came back with her uncle and brother to her parents' house -the appellant is entitled to be granted anticipatory BAIL.

2004)
Omar Usman Chamadia. Appellant Vs. Abdul and Anr.
Subject Index: Bail -- refused by the sessions court -- granted by the
High Court -- without assigning any reason why a BAIL refused by the
Sessions Court by a reasoned order should be reversed by the High
Court, it proceeded to allow the application by imposing certain
conditions. It is against the said order of the High Court, the appellant,
who is a complainant in this case, has preferred this appeal seeking the
cancellation of the BAIL -- this is a fit case in which the BAIL granted to
the first respondent by the High Court should be cancelled -- the need
for delivering a reasoned order is a requirement of law which has to be
complied with in all appealable orders.

2004)
Biman Chatterjee Appellant Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon'ble

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- section 498A -- complaint
under -- grant of BAIL on the assurance of compromise -- cancellation
of BAIL -- the High Court was not justified in cancelling the BAIL on the
ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise
--no compromise -- non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise
cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a BAIL -- what the court
has to bear in mind while granting BAIL is what is provided for in
Section 437 of the said Code -- having granted the BAIL under the said
provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to
cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for
cancellation of BAIL in the said provision of law.

1997)
Vimla Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on
2/11/2004.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- sections 302, 120 B 380
and 460 -- murder of landlady -- both husband and wife sentenced for
varying period of imprisonment maximum of which was life
imprisonment -- conviction and sentence of husband has become final
-- appellant enlarged on BAIL -- the courts below have committed an
error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its
case against the appellant.
2004 SCCL.COM 177(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (CRL).

No. 2527 of 2003 (With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2528 of 2003)
Mandata Singh Petitioner Vs. State of Rajasthan and another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Ashok Bhan.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of FIRs filed against the petitioner -he had already undergone more than 14 months of imprisonment as
under trial prisoner and therefore he should be shown mercy and
released on BAIL -- on 6.10.2003 granted BAIL temporarily to the
petitioner for a period of four months subject to his furnishing a BAIL
bond in an amount of Rs. 10,000/- -- it was made clear in the order
that if the petitioner misuses the liberty given to him his BAIL
application would be liable to be cancelled. The case was ordered to be
listed after 14 weeks -- temporary BAIL granted cancelled -- trial Court
is directed to dispose of the case without granting any adjournments of
long duration. The case should be disposed of expeditiously and
preferably within a period of two months and if need be by taking up
the case on day to day basis. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an
expression of opinion on merits of the accusation of petitioner.

2004)
Union of India Appellant Vs. Mahaboob Alam Respondent,
Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- granting of BAIL -- to the repeat
offender -- no application of mind by the learned judge -- not a case in
which the High Court ought to have enlarged the respondent on BAIL.

2004)
Customs, New Delhi Appellant Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- section 37 -- granting of BAIL -customs authorities recovered huge quantity of 'Diazepam' tablets from
the accused -- High Court granted BAIL -- as no material placed to
show that it was Psychotropic substance -- the report of the Central
Revenue Control Laboratory was brought to the notice of the High
Court. The same was lightly brushed aside without any justifiable
reason -- the grant of BAIL to the accused was not called for. The
impugned order granting BAIL is set aside and the BAIL granted is
cancelled.

2004)
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Appellant Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
Yadav and Another Respondents, decided on 3/12/2004.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- an accused has a right to make
successive applications for grant of BAIL the court entertaining such
subsequent BAIL applications has a duty to consider the reasons and
grounds on which the earlier BAIL applications were rejected -- the
court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which
persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier
applications -- the High Court was not justified in granting BAIL to the
first respondent on the ground that he has been in custody for a period
of 3 years or that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in
the near future, without taking into consideration the other factors.
2004 SCCL.COM 277(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.)

No. 4773 of 2003)
Moulvi Hussain Ibrahim Umarji Petitioner Vs. State of Gujarat
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Arun Kumar and Honble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- petitioner arrested in connection
with incident when Sabarmati Express was stopped near Godhra and a
Coach was set on fire resulting in death of 59 persons and serious
injuries to 48 others -- petitioner charged for offences under Sections
143, 147, 148, 332, 337, 338, 435, 186, 120(b), 153(a), 302, 307,
395, 397 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) and Section 3(3) of the
POTA, and Sections 141, 151 and 152 of the Indian Railways Act, and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act -not fit case where petitioner may be released on BAIL.
2004 SCCL.COM 1000(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.126566 of 2004)

Arvind Mohan Johari & Another Appellants Vs. State of U.P. and
Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Cheating -- forgery etc. various offences committed -request for BAIL -- no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the
Appellants in continued detention -- all endeavours should be made to
realise as much amount as possible from the personal and other assets
of the Appellants by putting them on sale or otherwise -- all Courts,
Tribunals and Statutory Authority are hereby directed to produce all
documents and papers which are in their power and possession in
accordance with law, as and when called for by the learned Company
Judge or the Presiding Officer(s) appointed in terms of this order -- it
would be open to the learned Company Judge to avail the services of
official liquidator as also lawyers and their remuneration may be fixed
by the learned Company Judge which would be realized from the assets
of the Appellants.

2004)
Narcotics Control Bureau Appellant Vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon'ble
Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- Section 37 -- BAIL granting of -in the case at hand the High Court seems to have completely
overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 and transgressed the
limitations statutorily imposed in allowing BAIL. It did not take note of
the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act -Mere non-compliance of the order passed for supply of copies, if any,
cannot as in the instant case entitle an accused to get BAIL
notwithstanding prohibitions contained in Section 37.
2004 SCCL.COM 364(Case/Appeal No: SLP (Crl.) No. 5534 of 2003)

Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani @ Janani and another Petitioners Vs.
State through Inspector of Police Respondent, decided on
2/26/2004.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice B.N. Srikirshna.
Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 - and 37
-- BAIL -- denied -- appeal -- appellants accused under sections 20(b)
(ii)(c) and 25 -- alleged violation of section 42 -- having regard to the
special facts of the case, the appellants be released on BAIL.
2004 SCCL.COM 453(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 316 of 1998

(With Crl. A. Nos. 317, 318, 332 and 396 of 1998))
Daroga Singh and Ors. Appellants Vs. B.K. Pandey Respondent,
Justice Ashok Bhan.
Subject Index: Contempt proceedings -- High Court decided to
proceed in a summary manner -- the High Court found only those
contemners guilty against whom the element of doubt was completely
eliminated -- contemners against whom there was single identification
were also given the benefit of doubt -- incidents which undermine the
dignity of the courts should be condemned and dealt with swiftly. When
a judge is attacked and assaulted in his court room and chambers by
persons on which shoulders lay the obligation of maintaining law and
order and protecting the citizen against any unlawful act needs to be
condemned in the severest of terms -- it is unfortunate that neither the
criminal proceedings nor the disciplinary proceedings or the inquiry
under the Commission of Inquiry Act have been concluded. No doubt
the appellants had been suspended initially but in due course they have
been reinstated. Some of them have retired as well. Inaction on the
part of the authorities resulted in emboldening others to commit similar
acts -- it is unfortunate that in one of the largest constitutional
democracies of the world the police has not been able to change its that
trait of hostility -- the disciplinary authorities before whom the
disciplinary proceedings are pending and the criminal Courts before
whom the prosecutions are pending against the appellants to conclude
the proceedings and the trial at the earliest.

2004)
Raj Kumar Jain and Anr. Appellants Vs. Kundan Jain and Anr.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble
Subject Index: Bail -- anticipatory BAIL -- granted -- cancellation of -the High Court was not justified in cancelling the BAIL granted.
2004 SCCL.COM 507(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 446449 of 2004 (with Crl. A. Nos. 450-452 of 2004))
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another Appellants Vs. State of
Gujarat and others Respondents, decided on 4/12/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon'ble
Subject Index: Best Bakery Case -- witness Protection -- quality and
credibility of evidence -- improper conduct of trial by the Public
Prosecutor -- day to day trial mandate of section 309 of the Code -trial to be completed by December, 2004 -- keeping in view the peculiar
circumstances of the case, and the ample evidence on record, glaringly
demonstrating subversion of justice delivery system and with no
congeal and conductive atmosphere still prevailing, we direct that the
re-trial shall be done by a Court under the jurisdiction of Bombay High
Court. The Chief Justice of the said High Court is requested to fix up a
Court of Competent jurisdiction -- the State Government to appoint
another Public Prosecutor and it shall be open to the affected persons to
suggest any name which may also be taken into account in the decision
to so appoint. Though the witnesses or the victims do not have any
choice in the normal course to have a say in the matter of appointment
of a Public Prosecutor in view of the unusual factors noticed in this case,
to accord such liberties to the complainants party, would be
appropriate.

2004)
Vijay Shekhar & Anr. Appellants Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice S.B. Sinha and Honble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 32 -- petition under -validity of the complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate,
Court No.10, Ahmedabad in a complaint filed by the said Suresh Kumar
Jethalal Sanghvi under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(1) and 114 IPC
against 4 persons named therein and consequential BAILable warrants
issued against the said persons by the said court -- the complaint in
question is a product of fraud and a total abuse of the process of court.
There is also serious doubt whether the procedure required under the
Code of Criminal Procedure was really followed by the Magistrate at all
while taking cognizance of the offence alleged -- a fraudulent act even
in judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to stand -- the complaint filed
before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10 at
Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 118 of 2004 dated 15.1.2004 is ex
facie an act of fraud by a fictitious person, and an abuse of the process
court, every and any action taken pursuant to the said complaint gets
vitiated -- the complaint registered before the Metropolitan Magistrate,
Court No. 10 at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 118 of 2004 dated
15.1.2004 and all actions taken thereon including the issuance of
BAILable warrants is liable to be declared ab initio void, hence, liable to
be set aside.
2004 SCCL.COM 584(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. of 2004

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2603 of 2003))
N.C.B. Trivandrarum Petitioner Vs. Jalaluddin A. Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 -- Section 37 -- prosecution for
possessing 790 grams of heroin -- commercial quantity -- application
for grant of BAIL rejected by the Sessions Court -- High Court granted
the BAIL -- impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained -the impugned order of the High Court granting BAIL to the respondent
cannot be sustained -- remand the matter back to the High Court to
consider the BAIL application of the respondent bearing in mind the
restrictions found in Section 37 of the Act.

2003)
Manish Kumar Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided
on 4/21/2004.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.G.Balakrishnan and Honble
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 -- Sections 8/21, 42 and 50 -- 750
milligrams of smack recovered from the appellant -- found guilty by the
Additional Sessions Judge -- the appellant had also no case that he was
in the habit of using the drug and he kept in his possession for his
personal consumption. When questioned under section 313, Cr.P.C. the
appellant completely denied the recovery of the drug from him -- the
appellant was granted BAIL by this Court and the appellant is directed
to surrender his BAIL bonds within 3 weeks failing which the Special
Judge will take appropriate steps to arrest him to undergo remaining
period of sentence.

2002)
Satyapalan Appellant Vs. State of Kerala and another
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Honble
Subject Index: A) NDPS Act, 1985 -- proviso to Section 41 of NDPS
(Amendment) Act, 2001 -- Section 21(a) -- small quantity -- the
appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 21(a) of the NDPS
Act. The learned Single Judge was perfectly right in holding that
amended section 21 has no application as the appeal was still pending
and in view of the proviso to section 41 of the Act 9/2001 -- the appeal
is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The
appellant in this case was released on BAIL by this Court. The appellant
is directed to surrender to his BAIL bonds within 3 weeks failing which
the Special Judge will take appropriate steps to arrest him to undergo
the remaining period of sentence. B) NDPS Act, 1985 -- Section 42 -violation of -- even though the information must have been to the effect
that the appellant was selling brown sugar at his house, he, in fact, was
found at the pathway leading to his house and thereafter his body was
searched. PW-3 had no occasion to search any building, conveyance or
enclosed place so as to attract section 42 of the Act.

State of Haryana Appellant Vs. Hasmat Respondent, decided on
7/26/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- section 389 -- grant
of BAIL by Punjab & Haryana High Court questioned -- the High Court
by the impugned order granted BAIL primarily on the ground that after
the conviction the accused respondent had been granted parole on
three occasions and there was no allegation of any misuse of liberty
during the period of parole -- the requirement of recording reasons in
writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the
relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and
grant of BAIL should not be passed as a matter of routine -- the order
directing suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL is clearly
unsustainable and is set aside.

2004)
Chaman Lal Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another
Subject Index: Bail -- grant of -- challenged in two appeal -- at the
stage of granting BAIL a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. But
that does not mean that while granting BAIL some reasons for prima
facie concluding why BAIL was being granted is not required to be
indicated -- the cryptic non-reasoned order of the High Court, is clearly
indefensible.

2004)
Omwati Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- section 390 -- when
appeal against acquittal heard, appellant complainant not present -BAILable warrant issued by High Court -- the State Counsel should have
pointed it out to the Court about the nature of the matter and the
propriety of issuing BAILable or non-bailable warrants against the
complainant appellant. The unfurtunate sequel of such unmindful orders
has been that the appellant was taken into custody and had to remain
in jail for some time, maybe for a few days, but without any justification
whatsoever. She suffered in view of the total non-application of mind at
the stage of passing of the two impugned orders. Some degree of care
is supposed to be taken before passing an order of issue of warrants,
BAILable or non-bailable. Such orders cannot stand.

2004)
State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Sitaram Popat Vetal and
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- whether legal? false cases foisted
because of political rivalry -- at the stage of granting BAIL a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of
the case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while
granting BAIL some reasons for prima facie concluding why BAIL was
being granted is not required to be indicated -- even though criminal
antecedents are always not determinative of the question whether BAIL
is to be granted, yet their relevance cannot be totally ignored -- the

grant of BAIL to the respondents does not appear to be in order.

2004)
Nirmal Jeet Kaur Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Honble Mr.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 438 -- protection
to respondent No.2 assailed by the appellant -- as observed in
Salauddins case the protection in terms of Section 438 is for a limited
duration during which the regular Court has to be moved for BAIL.
Obviously, such BAIL is BAIL in terms of Section 439 of the Code,
mandating the applicant to be in custody. Otherwise, the distinction
between orders under Sections 438 and 439 shall be rendered
meaningless and redundant -- if the protective umbrella of Section 438
is extended beyond what was laid down in Salauddins case (supra) the
result would be clear bypassing of what is mandated in Section 439
regarding custody. In other words, till the applicant avails remedies
upto higher Courts, the requirements of Section 439 become dead
letter. No part of a statute can be rendered redundant in that manner -the protection given to the respondent no.2 by the High Court while the
application under Section 439 of the Code is pending is clearly
unsustainable. Respondent no.2 would surrender to custody as required
in law so that his application under Section 439 of the Code can be
taken for disposal.

2004)
Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Appellant Vs. State of West
Bengal and another Respondents, decided on 8/25/2004.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Honble Mr.
Justice S.B. Sinha and Honble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Bail -- granted by trial court -- cancelled by High Court
-- the trial court after looking into the case diary and other material
produced before it and also noticing the fact that investigating agency
had only sought judicial remand, and the argument of the possibility of
accused tampering with the evidence still taking into consideration the
age and ailments of the accused appellant granted BAIL on stringent
condition -- High Court has approached the case as if it is an appeal
against the conviction by giving findings on factual issues which are yet
to be decided -- the respondent has not made out a case for
cancellation of the BAIL and the High Court has erred in doing so.
2004 SCCL.COM 817(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6973-6975

of 2000 (with C.A. Nos. 1013-1017 of 2002) (with C.A. Nos. 69767026, 7028-7038, 7461-7465/2000, 177-269, 7923-7924/2001, 4293,
4878 of 2002 and 1013-1017/2002, 2122, 2544, 2717-2718, 2958,
3339-3348, 3429-32, 3378-3380, 4008-09, 3996-4002, 3589-3591,
3567, 3777-3785, 3790-3796, 3962-64 4191, 4062-63, 46664671,4479-80, 4673-4682, 4732-36, 4691-4731, 4737-4742, 5479-88,
6088-89, 5207, 5489-94, 5496-5502, 6611, 7243, 7454/2001, 466470, 3475, 5073-77, 7399-7400/2002, 469-470/2003, 5867, 5868,
5869, 5870, 5871-5875, 5876, 5877, 5878, 5879/2004))
Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Appellant and
Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune Appellant Vs. C.I.T.,
Kolhapur and other Respondents and Shri Chatrapati Sahakari
Shakar Karkhana Ltd. Respondent, decided on 9/8/2004.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal and Honble Mr.
Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act -- whether compulsory deductions
made by sugar cooperative societies on account of non-refundable and
refundable deposits and other Funds are revenue receipts liable to be
taxed under the Income Tax Act.

1999)
Union of India and another Appellants Vs. The State of Assam
Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar.
Subject Index: Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 -Section 438 -- whether an application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be filed in respect of offences
contemplated under the provisions of Railway Property (Unlawful
Possession) Act, 1966 -- Single Judge held that the offences were
BAILable after referring to Section 8 of the Act. A review application
was filed for suitable modification on the ground that Section 8 of the
Act has not been properly analysed -- the High Court was not justified
in holding that all the offences under the Act are BAILable. Such view is
contrary to the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act -- Learned
Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in holding that since the
offences have been specifically made BAILable under the Act, they are
BAILable. The conclusion is indefensible.

Jagtar Singh and another Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 120B and 420 -- a
criminal complaint of cheating and conspiracy filed against the
appellants and Nanak Chand, the father of one of the complainants -Nanak Chand filed an application for grant of anticipatory BAIL -- also
offered to deposit Rs. 5.82 lacs to show his bona fides -- in the event of
settlement the amount will be paid to the complainants -- dispute arose
-- in the interest of justice, the amount will be kept in interest bearing
deposit till appropriate orders.

2004)
Kishori Lal Appellant Vs. Kishori Lal Appellant, decided on
9/23/2004.
Subject Index: Bail -- legality of grant of BAIL called in question -- an
application under section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed in the appeal with the
prayer that execution of substantive sentence of imprisonment for life
and fine the suspended -- the order directing suspension of sentence
and grant of BAIL is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.
2004 SCCL.COM 903(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No.

69 of 2004)
T.P. Moideen Koya Petitioner Vs. Government of Kerala and
Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P.
Mathur and Honble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: COFEPOSA -- Sections 3(i)(iv) -- detention of the
petitioner under section 3(i)(iv) -- setting aside -- the petition under
Art. 32 filed -- a detention order which has been validly passed cannot
be rendered invalid on account of the own conduct of the detenu of
absconding and evading service -- this is not a case where the
petitioner may have been taken into custody in connection with some
serious criminal case where there may be no immediate possibility of
his getting BAIL -- even on merits, the ground urged in support of the
writ petition has no substance.

1999)
State of Karnataka Appellant Vs. Papanaika and others
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Honble Mr.
Justice A.K. Mathur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 302, 324 -- conviction -- acquittal by High Court -- appeal against
acquittal -- there is no two opinion that the High Court has full power to
re-appreciate the evidence and come to a conclusion independently but
the conclusion which is arrived at by the High Court should be rational
and proper appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses. In the
present case, the High Court has not examined the statement of the
witnesses and just on a bald statement that when the prosecution
version has been accepted in full and the witnesses have tendency to
over implicate, then what is the guarantee that other part is also true -Division Bench has disbelieved the entire prosecution evidence. This
approach of the High Court is not correct. There should be proper
appreciation of evidence and finding has to be recorded against each
witness as to why the said witness is not being believed when he was
believed by the trial court -- The accused persons who are on BAIL,
their BAIL bonds are cancelled and they shall surrender before the trial
court to serve out the remaining sentence within one month.
2004 SCCL.COM 1007(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1269

of 2004)
Sompal Singh Appellant Vs. Sunil Rathi and Anr. Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Honble Mr. Justice
G.P. Mathur.
302, 307, 404, 504 and 506 -- granting of BAIL under -- appeal -- in all
civil and criminal matters, the Supreme Court is the highest and the
ultimate Court of appeal -- in the hierarchical judicial system, it is not
for any Court to tell a superior Court as to how a matter should be
decided when an appeal is taken against its decision to that superior
Court. Such a course would be subversive of judicial discipline on the
bedrock of which the judicial system is founded and finality is attached
and orders are obeyed -- the appeal is allowed and the order dated
27.5.2004 granting BAIL to Sunil Rathi (respondent no.1) is set aside.

2003 (with C.A. No. 6750 of 2003))
Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar Appellant Vs. Shri Dayanand
Rayu Mandrakar and others Respondents, decided on
12/15/2004.
Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 -- section 116A -statutory appeals filed under -- section 81 (3) 83(1)(a)(c) and 83(2) -non-compliance of the mandatory provisions -- whether the returned
candidates proved that the election petitions were liable to be rejected
under section 81(1) read with section 86 of the Act by reason of it being
barred by limitation? -- whether the returned candidates proved that
the election petitions were liable to be rejected in limine under section
86 of the Act by reason of its non-compliance of sections 81(3), 83(1)
(a)(c) and 83(2) of the Act? -- whether the respondent No.1 proved
that the election petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 86 of the Act by
reason of non-disclosure of any cause of action? -- under section 116A
of the Act the Supreme Court is conferred with power not only to decide
an appeal filed under this section on a question of law but it would also
be open to the Supreme Court to decide the appeal on facts as well -in any event, there has been substantial compliance of the
requirements of law -- the Appeals should be allowed and the matter be
remitted to the High Court for determining the dispute on merits.

2005)
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Appellant Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu Respondent, decided on 1/10/2005.
Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P.
Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- appeal by special leave -- against
the order dated 8.12.2004 of Madras High Court, by which the petition
for BAIL filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected -prima facie a strong case has been made out for grant of BAIL to the
petitioner. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of
the High Court is set aside. The petitioner shall be released on BAIL on
his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengleput -- till the submission of the charge
sheet in Court, the petitioner shall not visit the Mutt premises. He shall
also surrender his passport before the CJM.

(with C.A. No. 6691 of 2002))
P. Prabhakaran Appellant with Ramesh Singh Dalal Appellant Vs.
P. Jayarajan Respondent with Nafe Singh and others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Honble Mr. Justice
Shivaraj V. Patil, Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Representation of the people Act, 1951 -- Section 8(3)
-- disqualification under -- Whether a appellate judgment of a date
subsequent to the date of election and having a bearing on conviction of
a candidate and sentence of imprisonment passed on him would have
the effect of wiping out disqualification from a back date if a person
consequent upon his conviction for any offence and sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than 2 years was disqualified from filing
nomination and contesting the election on the dates of nomination and
election; -- What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression - 'A
person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not
less than 2 years" as employed in sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951? Is it necessary that the term of
imprisonment for not less than 2 years must be in respect of one single
offence to attract the disqualification? -- What is the purport of subsection (4) of Section 8 of RPA? Whether the protection against
disqualification conferred by sub-section (4) on a member of a House
would continue to apply through the candidate had ceased to be a
member of Parliament or Legislature of a State on the date of
nomination or election? -- an appellate judgment of a date subsequent
to the date of nomination or election (as the case may be) and having a
bearing on conviction of a candidate or sentence of imprisonment
passed on him would not have the effect of wiping out disqualification
from a back date if a person consequent upon his conviction for any
offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years was
actually and as a fact disqualified from filing nomination and contesting
the election on the date of nomination or election (as the case may be)
-- What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression 'sentence to
imprisonment for not less than 2 years' as occurring in Sec. 8(3) of the
RPA? -- the judgment of the High Court dated 5.10.2001 is set aside.
The election petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The election of
the respondent P. Jayarajan from No.14 Kuthuparamba Assembly
Constituency to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly, which was
declared on 13.5.2001, is set aside. The respondent No.1 shall bear the
costs of the appellant throughout -- The election petition filed by the
appellant shall stand allowed. The election of the respondent Nafe Singh
from 37-Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency is declared void as he was
disqualified from being a candidate under Section 8(3) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2005 SCCL.COM 37(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 107-108

of 2005)
Panchanan Mishra Appellant Vs. Digambar Mishra and others
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Honble Dr.
Justice AR Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Bail -- granted by the Patna High Court -- special leave
petitions passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos. 50
of 2004 and 62 of 2004 -- granting the BAIL to accused Nos.1 to 3
without considering the criminal history of the accused, the evidence
available against them, the threats to the life of the
complainant/appellant and his family members and likelihood to
abscond from the criminal courts of justice and rendering the fair trial
impossible -- the accused were armed with the guns and they
surrounded the brothers and the complainant/appellant -- the
complainant brought the two injured sons on a thela to Sardar Hospital

Munger but they died before any medical help could be given to them
and they were declared dead. One of the deceased was an advocate,
another was lecturer and one was appointed auditor -- the motive of
the murder was on account of the occurrence which took place that the
complainant/appellant had sold a land to Ramachandra Yadav and the
accused persons felt annoyed at it and tried to garb those lands on the
strength of their muscle power and there is also a litigation pending
between the parties. Anil Mishra was also injured -- the trial Court
convicted and sentenced the accused Mahendra Mishra, Rajendra Mishra
and Jitendra Mishra for the offence under Sections 148, 302 read with
34, 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The
accused Digambar Mishra was convicted and sentenced under Section
109 read with Section 302 and under Section 307 I.P.C. -- the High
Court did not take into proper account the grave apprehension of the
prosecution that there was a likelihood of the accused persons
tampering with the prosecution witnesses -- the order passed by the
High Court in granting BAIL in Criminal Appeal Nos. 50 of 2004 and 62
of 2004 stands set aside and cancelled.

2004(with Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2005))
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Appellant Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav and another Respondents, decided on 1/18/2005.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- is charged for offences punishable
under Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 120-B, 302/307
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. This application before the High
Court for grant of BAIL was the 9th application in the series of
application filed by the said respondent for grant of BAIL -- grant of
BAIL solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order of the
High Court granting BAIL -- Court also observed that though an accused
had a right to make successive applications for grant of BAIL the court
entertaining such subsequent BAIL applications had duty to consider the
reasons and grounds on which the earlier BAIL applications were
rejected and in such cases the court also had a duty to record what are
the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the
one taken in the earlier applications -- in the absence of any new or
fresh ground, it was not open to the High Court to have reconsidered
the same material and overruled the earlier findings of the court in the
guise of considering afresh the existence of a prima facie -- the
prosecution on the basis of the material available on record has
established a prima facie case against the accused -- the conduct of the
respondent-accused as brought on record clearly indicates that
enlarging the said accused on BAIL would impede the progress of the
trial -- the High Court was totally in error in allowing the BAIL
application of the respondent by the impugned order -- impugned order
of the High Court quashed -- BAIL application dismissed.

2005 With Special Leave Petition (crl.) 3749 of 2001)
Pratap Singh Appellant Vs. State of Jharkhand and another
Justice S.N. Variava, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
H.K. Sema and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Juvenile Act, 1986 and 2000 -- the provisions of 2000
Act would be applicable to those cases initiated and pending
trial/inquiry for the offences committed under the 1986 Act provided
that the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001 -the reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is
the date of an offence and not the date when he is produced before the
authority or in the Court -- the 2000 Act would be applicable in a
pending proceeding in any court/authority initiated under the 1986 Act
and is pending when the 2000 Act came into force and the person had
not completed 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001.
2005 SCCL.COM 79(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.219 of

2005 ETC)
M.P. Lohia etc. Appellant Vs. State of West Bengal and Another
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 304B, 406 and
498 A read with section 34 -- charge under -- whether the appellants be
granted anticipatory BAIL or not.

2005)
Adri Dharan Das Appellant Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent,
Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Section 438 -protection availability -- the legality of the proposed arrest cannot be
gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of
the investigator is well-defined and the jurisdictional scope of
interference by the Court in the process of investigation is limited -when the BAIL application is moved in terms of Section 439 of the Code
before the concerned Court the same shall be considered in its proper
perspective in accordance with law.
2005 SCCL.COM 222(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 698-700 of

1995)
Smt. Claude-Lila Parulekar Appellant Vs. M/s. Sakal Papers Pvt.
Ltd. and others Respondents, decided on 3/18/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: Companies Act, 1956 -- Section 155 -- Proceedings
initiated under -- transfer of shares made in violation of Section 108 of
the companies as held by Single Judge -- Division Bench held the
violation mere irregularity which was curable -- the Court exercising
jurisdiction under Section 155 of the Companies Act was competent to
entertain the applications filed by the appellants cannot be disputed.
The only question is whether the discretion to do so was properly
exercised -- it would not be appropriate at this stage to exercise our
discretion to grant the relief of rectification. However, the fact remains
that the appellant has been wronged and she is entitled to be
compensated. Section 155 of the Companies Act, allows the giving of
damages in addition to or in lieu of rectification -- ends of justice would
be met by directing that the appellant should be compensated with an
amount of Rs.3 crores to be paid by the company to the appellant in full
and final settlement of the appellant's claims in respect of the 3417 and
93 shares -- the company will also allot shares to the company out of
the 17,666 shares on par proportionate with the appellant's present
share holding.

Kamalanantha and others Appellants Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Honble Mr.
Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Appeal by Special Leave against conviction -- the facts
of this case, as revealed by the prosecution, shocked the judicial
conscience. It illustrate a classic example as to how the insatiable lust
for sex of A-1 Swami Premananda leads to the raping of 13 Ashram
girls and murder of one Ravi. The The Ashram which is supposed to be
God abode turned out to be devil's workshop. A-1 to whom the inmates
of the Ashram regarded as God having the divine power turned out to
be a monster -- having regard to the amplitude of the gravity of the
offence, perpetrated in an organized and systematic manner, the nature
of the offence and its deleterious effects not only against the victims,
but the civilized society at large, needs to be curbed by a strong judicial
hand -- Court inclined to confirm the sentence and conviction as
recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The order
of the Trial Court that any remission of sentence or amnesty on any

special occasions announced or to be announced be either by the
Central or the State Government shall not apply to the sentence and
imprisonment imposed on all the accused is also maintained.

2005)
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Appellant Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another Respondents, decided on 4/7/2005.
Justice B.P. Singh and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 -interpretation and application of.

2005)
Nityanand Rai Appellant Vs. State of Bihar & Another
Subject Index: Bail -- granted by High Court and then cancelled -challenged by the appeal -- appellant charged under sections 302, 307
and 120 and sections 27 of the Arms Act after 10 years -- applied for
anticipatory BAIL -- could not get -- ultimately got from High Court and
cancelled -- the allegation of abscondence in past or the likelihood of
abscondence in future cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact that for
nearly 10 years and after filing 7 charge-sheets, the investigation did
not find sufficient material to include the appellant as an accused in
those 7 charge-sheets is an indicator of the fact that for all these years
the investigation agency could not find material against the appellant -the cancellation of BAIL by the impugned order, by the High Court is
unsustainable.

2005)
Vasant Tukaram Pawar Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Section 13 -trial under -- refusal by the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench to
accept the prayer of the appellant for suspension of sentence and to be
released on BAIL while admitting the appeal filed by him, is questioned
in this Appeal.

Vasanthi Appellant Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on
5/4/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 120-B read with
Sections 364(A), 341 and Andhra Pradesh Control of Organized Crime
Act, 2001 -- appellant arrested under -- charge-sheet filed -- BAIL -granting of -- the material on record does not justify the conclusion at
this stage that the appellant would indulge in similar offence of an
organised crime if she is released on BAIL -- direct the appellant to be
released on BAIL on furnishing personal bond for Rs. 20,000/- and a
surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Ist Addl. Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2005 SCCL.COM 351(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Misc. Petition

Nos.47-48 of 2005 (with Criminal Misc. Petition Nos.53-54 of 2005) IN
Criminal Appeal Nos.1265-1266 of 2004)
Arvind Mohan Johari & Another Appellants with The Stock
Exchange, Mumbai Applicant Vs. State of U.P. & Another
Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- rejected -- to whether the
respective Stock Exchanges were entitled to debit the amounts of Rs.21
Crores and 17 Crores respectively towards their purported claim should
be directed to be scrutinized by us by a Chartered Accountant -- the
recoveries have been directed to be made by the Stock Exchanges in
exercise of their power conferred upon them under the bye-laws
governing the parties. Furthermore, several arbitration awards are said
to have been passed in favour of the clients/investors and the members
of the Stock Exchanges. The parties, therefore, must get their disputes
determined in an appropriate forum -- the Appellants misled this Court
in passing the said order dated 3.11.2004 by raising contention to the
effect that a sum of Rs.17 Crores and 13 Crores are admittedly lying
with the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange in the
shape of bank guarantee money and securities margin money etc. -having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, that
if a substantial sum lying with them are not available for disbursement
to the claimants, the very purpose for enlarging the Appellants herein
on BAIL would not be subserved and in that view of the matter.

5321 of 2004)
C.R. Patil Petitioner Vs. State of Gujarat and others Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice C.K. Thakker & Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- petitioners willing to pay the
amount due -- terms and conditions of previous temporary BAIL
complied with -- petitioners making honest effort to repay the debt -no useful purpose will be served in keeping them behind bars -- petition
allowed.

2002 (with W.P. (C) No. 570 of 2002))
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Petitioner Vs.
Union of India Respondent, decided on 8/2/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- Amendment Acts of
1999 and 2002 -- recommendations and suggestions to various
amendments in the Code made -- draft Civil Procedure - Alternative
Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules and Model Case Flow
Management Rules framed -- High Courts, Central / State Governments
to take requisite action and file progress report within four months.
2005 SCCL.COM 456(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 144-145

of 2004)
Jacob Mathew Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P.
Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 304A and 34 -complaints against -- doctors for negligence resulting in loss of life or
injury -- professional negligence -- all the averments made in the
complaint, even if held to be proved, do not make out a case of criminal
rashness or negligence on the part of the accused appellant -- it is not
the case of the complainant that the accused-appellant was not a doctor
qualified to treat the patient whom he agreed to treat. It is a case of
non- availability of oxygen cylinder either because of the hospital
having failed to keep available a gas cylinder or because of the gas
cylinder being found empty -- the accused appellant cannot be
proceeded against under Section 304A IPC on the parameters of
Bolam's test.

2005)
Ateef Nasir Mulla Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 -- Section 49(2)(b)
-- investigation -- application for extension of time to complete
investigation and extension of remand -- notice and opportunity to file
reply given to accused -- order of further detention passed after hearing
both parties -- grant of extension valid -- dismissal of BAIL application
upheld -- appeal dismissed.

2005)
V.D. Chaudhary Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another
Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Section 482 -- BAIL
-- grant of -- no reasons for grant of BAIL indicated -- BAIL sought on
ground that police surreptitiously changed the nature of offence -- held
no embargo on police to file charge-sheet indicating appropriate offence
-- BAIL not cancelled as prosecution evidence closed -- directions to
complete trial by specified date.

2005)
Surinder Singh @ Shingara Singh Appellant Vs. State of Punjab
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh and Honble Mr.
Subject Index: Bail -- conviction for offence of murder -- BAIL
application filed during pendency of appeal dismissed -- challenged on
ground of ratio of judgment in Dharampal vs. State of Haryana -- held
aforesaid case only laid down guidelines which ought to be kept in mind
while dealing with application for grant of BAIL in pending appeal and
not any invariable rule -- interim BAIL already granted -- made
absolute.

2005)
Anwari Begum Appellant Vs. Sher Mohammad and another
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Arun Kumar.
-- granted by High Court by non-speaking and non-reasoned order -accused charged for offence of murder -- factors to be considered by
Court before granting BAIL enumerated -- High Court's order showed
complete non-application of mind- BAIL cancelled -- appeal allowed.

2005 (with Crl. A. No. 1249 of 2005))
State through C.B.I. Appellant Vs. Amarmani Tripathi
Respondent with Madhumani Tripathi Respondent, decided on
9/26/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice R.V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Bail -- grant of -- respondents husband & wife accused
of murder -- material on record showing that husband tried to interfere
with the course of investigation, tamper with witnesses and fabricate
evidence -- wife absconded for several months -- apprehension if
husband alone taken into custody, wife may take over task of tampering
with evidence and manipulating witnesses -- principles relating to grant
or refusal of BAIL not followed by High Court -- BAIL revoked.

2005)
State of Tamil Nadu Petitioner Vs. S. A. Raja Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar.
Subject Index: Bail -- grant of -- accused charged with offences under
Indian Penal Code and Arms Act -- BAIL rejected by High Court and
Supreme Court -- thereafter application again moved before High Court
which granted BAIL -- no change in circumstances -- strong allegations
against accused who is likely to influence witnesses -- principles of res
judicata not applicable to BAIL applications, but repeated filing of BAIL
applications with out any change of circumstances leads to bad
precedents -- BAIL order set aside -- appeal allowed.

2005)
P.K. Shaji @ Thammanam Shaji Appellant Vs. State of Kerala

-- cancellation of -- accused failed to comply with conditions for grant of
BAIL -- challenged on ground that BAIL granted by Sessions Court
cannot be cancelled by Magistrate -- by order granting BAIL, Sessions
Court had empowered Magistrate to consider question of violation and
pass appropriate orders -- order legal and valid -- contention of accused
that he did not complied with directions as he was in jail untenable as
same not raised before Magistrate -- order of cancellation of BAIL
upheld.

2005)
Himanshu Chandravadan Desai and others Appellants Vs. State
of Gujarat Respondent, decided on 11/16/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr.
-- Directors of bank accused of siphoning off huge amounts of funds of
bank through systematic fraud -- bank under liquidation due to the
scam -- enough material to show prime facie involvement of petitioners
directors in case -- if released on BAIL might abscond or tamper with
evidence due to huge amounts involved -- order of refusal of BAIL
upheld -- appeal dismissed.
2005 SCCL.COM 805(Case/Appeal No: S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4509 of

2004)
Union of India Petitioner Vs. Shiv Saran Gupta Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice H.K. Sema.
-- Section 37 -- BAIL granted without taking into consideration or
complying with provisions of section 37 -- BAIL rejected.

2005)
Union of India Petitioner Vs. Mohd. Shamim Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
-- Sections 8, 21, 29 -- offences under -- BAIL granted by High Court -not a fit case for grant of BAIL -- BAIL rejected -- appeal allowed.

2006 (with Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2006))
Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Another Appellants Vs. State of Gujarat
& Others Respondents, decided on 1/19/2006.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 307 and 324 read
with Section 114 -- offences under -- sentence reduced by High Court
on ground that both accused had no criminal antecedents and one had
appeared for class X examination -- number of criminal cases pending
against accused persons -- BAIL granted during trial cancelled for
breach of conditions imposed by court -- both aspects not considered by
High Court -- matter remanded back for fresh hearing.

of 1999 (with C.A. Nos. 2016-2023 of 1999 and 2073-2077 of 2000))
Smt. Bailamma @ Doddabailamma (Dead) and others Appellants
withSri M. Kondandaraju and others Appellants with Smt.
Muthamma etc. etc. Appellants Vs. Poornaprajna House
Building Co-operative Society and others Respondents with The
State of Karnataka and others Respondents, decided on
1/31/2006.
Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Sections 11 and 11A -award -- Collector made and signed award and same was approved by
Government within two years of its date of last publication -- Collector
not required under the Act to give notice to interested persons of the
date of pronouncement of the award -- appeals dismissed.
2006 SCCL.COM 87(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6319 of 2004)

The Commissioner of Police and others Appellants Vs. Syed
Hussain Respondent, decided on 1/25/2006.
Justice P.P. Naolekar.
Subject Index: Administrative Law -- respondent, a police constable
stood surety for BAIL for a hardened criminal -- misconduct -- removed
from service -- had committed misconduct on two previous occasions
and punished for same -- punishment of removal from service can be
imposed when misconduct is committed by a person who holds position
of trust -- order of removal passed by Administrative -- Tribunal upheld
-- appeal allowed.
2005)
T.V. Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi Vs.
State through Secretary and another, decided on 2/16/2006.
Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 -Section 3(1) -- preventive detention -- appellant already in custody on
date of passing of order of detention -- previous BAIL applications
rejected -- no material to show that there was imminent possibility of
BAIL being granted -- no sufficient reasons to sustain order of detention
-- appeal allowed.

2006)
Sunila Jain Appellant Vs. Union of India and another
Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 -- Article 22 -Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974 -- Preventive Detention -- whether BAIL application
is required to be considered for passing an order of preventive
detention? -- application of mind to the averments made in BAIL
application may be relevant where grounds stated therein reveal certain
facts which are vital for passing order of detention -- copy of order
granting BAIL and order of remand furnished to detenu -- only vital and
relevant documents are required to be supplied to detenu -- appeal
dismissed.

Naveen Kohli Appellant Vs. Neelu Kohli Respondent, decided on
3/21/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Hindu, Marriage Act, 1955 -- petition under for divorce
-- marriage totally dead -- total disappearance of substratum in the
marriage -- the marriage between the parties should be dissolved
according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Court
would like to recommended the Union of India to seriously consider
bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate
irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of
divorce.

2006)
Sankaran Moitra Appellant Vs. Smt. Sadhna Das and another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Hon'ble
Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Section 197 -sanction -- scope of -- deceased beaten to death by police -- officials
investigation started without grant of sanction u/s 197 -- Majority -question whether the act was done in performance of duty or in
purported performance of duty not examined -- complaint quashed -Minority -- case of merciless beating by police -- vivid description of
offence given by witnesses -- accused not arrested even though BAIL
was rejected -- hence act not in in discharge of official duty.

2006)
Jitendra Ram @ Jitu Appellant Vs. State of Jharkhand
Justice P.K Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 201 and 302 -Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 -- Section 2(h) -- Bihar Children Act, 1982 -Section 32 -- appellant convicted for offence of murder -- plea taken by
appellant that he was a juvenile on date of incident -- plea not raised
before trial court but at time of moving BAIL application -- matter
remanded back for determination of age of appellant on date of
commission of offence -- appeal allowed.

2006)
Anil Kumar Tulsiyani Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Bail -- respondent charged for offence u/s 302 r/w 201
IPC -- order granting BAIL challenged -- nature and gravity of offence
not considered while granting BAIL -- respondent a practicing advocate
-- reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with or won
over, coerced, threatened or intimidate by using his influence and
position cannot be ruled out -- no mitigating circumstances for granting
BAIL -- BAIL cancelled -- appeal allowed.
2002 (with Civil Appeal No. 2276 of 2002))

Standard Chartard Bank Appellant Vs. Andhra Bank Financial
Services Ltd. and others Respondents, decided on 5/5/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Hon'ble
Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar.
Subject Index: Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to
Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 -- Section 10 -- bonds issued by
NPCL allotted to ABFSL -- bonds sold by ABFSL to SCB -- valid title
acquired by SCB -- CMF claimed to be owner of the bonds having
purchased them from a stock broker on behalf of SLB or ABFSL -- no
credible document produced by CMF to show that suit bonds were
purchased by it by paying consideration -- SCB owner of suit bonds -appeals allowed.

2006)
Babanrao Tukaram Ranjane Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
-- granting of -- appellant a public servant charged u/s 3(2), 3(5) and
24 of MCOCA and 120-B of IPC for involvement in an organised crime -appellant in custody for more than two years and three months -appellant directed to be enlarged on BAIL on furnishing security of Rs. 1
lakh -- appropriate conditions imposed -- appeal allowed.

2006)
Ibrahim Nazeer Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another
Subject Index: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 -- Section 3(1)(i) -- Preventive
Detention -- order of detention passed to prevent the detenu from
indulging in smuggling -- detaining authority of the opinion that there
was likelihood of detenu being released on BAIL -- reasons given for
same -- detention order upheld -- appeal dismissed.
2006 SCCL.COM 525(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 691 &

692 of 2006)
Senthamilselvi Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Subject Index: Detention order -- questioned by the mother of the
appellant by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition before the Madras High
Court -- dismissed by the impugned judgment -- the detenu himself
made a confession and that was the main factor on which the order of
detention was founded -- the detenu was not arrested on the basis of
the co-accused's statement. On the contrary it has been clearly stated
in the ground of detention the detenu was arrested on suspicion -- High
Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that though reference
was made to co-accused's statement that was not relied upon for the
purpose of detention -- the conclusion that the detenu may be released
on BAIL cannot be ipsi-dixit of the detaining authority -- the High Court
was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant.

2006(with Civil Appeal No. 3722 of 2006))
B. Srinivasa Reddy Appellant Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply
& Drainage Board Employees' Association and others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject Index: Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board
Act, 1973 and the Rules and also the principles of law governing the
Writ of Quo Warranto and the power of the Government to make a
contractual appointment under Section 4(2) of the Act -- provisions -interpretation of.

2006)
Mohammad Chand Mulani Appellant Vs. Union of India and
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Section 439 -rejecting application for BAIL -- challenged in this appeal -- an FIR
relating to an offence of possessing counterfeit stamps punishable
under sections 120-B, 255, 258, 259, 260, 263-A, 420, 471, 472, 474
read with section 34 IPC, was registered against certain persons -- he
was arraigned as accused No. 61 in the supplementary charge-sheet
filed on 3.2.2004, and was charged under sections 120-B, 216, 218,
221 IPC r/w sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of MCOC Act and section 7 and
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act -- the High Court has
recorded a finding that "It cannot be said that it was the applicant
(Mulani) who was insisting that the wife, daughter and brother of Telgi
shall be kept out of the charge sheet as the Apex Court (in 2005 (5)
SCC 294) has already noted -- this is a fit case for grant of BAIL to the
appellant.

2006(with Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2006))
Gajanand Agarwal Appellant Vs. State of Orissa and others
Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- challenged -- as granted without
application of mind -- the court dealing with the application for BAIL is
required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course -- what is more baffling is that in the impugned orders
there is no mention about the States' stand. Was it a silent spectator
before the High Court? -- reconsideration of the applications for BAIL by
the High Court in accordance with law keeping in view the principles set
out.

2006)
Jasbir Singh Appellant Vs. State of Punjab Respondent, decided
on 10/11/2006.
Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 227 -- granting of BAIL
by the Inspecting Judge -- width and amplitude of the power of
superintendence over subordinate courts and whether it authorizes the
Inspecting Judges to transact any judicial work, which is in the domain
of the subordinate courts -- the extraordinary power under Article 227
can only be used by the High Courts to ensure that the subordinate
courts function within the limits of their authority.

2006)
State of Uttaranchal Appellant Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 -- Section 37 -- BAIL -- granting of -the respondent herein is an Ayurvedacharya. He operates from two
clinics -- advertisements were, allegedly, being issued by him in various
newspapers claiming that medicines used by him were prepared from
herbal plants collected from the Banks of Ganges and by application
thereof patients suffering from epilepsy can be cured -- Section 37 of
the 1985 Act would prima facie has no application in view of the
exception contained in Section 8 thereof read with the Rules -- a person
cannot be denied the right of being released on BAIL unless a clear case
of application of the 1985 Act is made out. He might have committed an
offence which repulses out morality. He may ultimately be found guilty
even for commission of an offence under the 1985 Act, but in a case of
this nature when prima facie the provisions of the said Act are not
found applicable particularly in view of the fact that he has been in
custody for a period of more than two years now, in our opinion, it is
not a fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2006)
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Appellant Vs. CBI through
its Director Respondent, decided on 11/16/2006.
Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 -- Article 136 -- appeal
under -- appellant is an accused in a case under Sections 302/34/120B
IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant's BAIL
application had been rejected earlier on several occasions by the High
Court as well as by this Court -- no further application for BAIL will be
considered in this case by any Court, as already a large number of BAIL
applications have been rejected earlier, both by the High Court and this
Court -- the trial court shall ensure that the defence witnesses are
examined on a day-to-day basis in accordance with a fixed time
schedule so that the trial is completed as expeditiously as possible and
the judgment is delivered soon thereafter.

2006)
Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav Appellant Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another Respondents, decided on 12/8/2006.
Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Section 439 -rejecting the second BAIL application preferred by the appellant under
Section 439 -- appellant an Advocate by profession -- elected as a
Member of the Legislative Assembly -- Minister in Andhra Pradesh -- in
the case of Telgi, voice recorded was that of the appellant -- having
regard to the circumstance, fit case for grant of BAIL.
2006)
Gokul Bhagaji Patil Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Subject Index: Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 -application for grant of BAIL rejected by Special Judge -- affirmed by
High Court -- appeal by special leave -- appellant a former Police
Commissioner and his Sub-Inspector Kakade (since dead), incharge of
the case, neither sealed the said premises nor seized the machines;
they ensured that Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi, the Kingpin of the
Organised Crime Syndicate and the prime accused was not arrested and
remained at large -- the appellant has been in judicial custody for over
three years, the maximum period of sentence contemplated under
Section 24 of MCOCA, the appellant deserves to be released on BAIL.

2007 (Cr.M.P. No. 490 of 2007))
Navjot Singh Sidhu Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 302 and 323 read
with Section 34 -- trial under -- acquittal by Sessions Judge, Patiala -challenged by State of Punjab -- conviction by High Court under Section
304 Part II -- special leave petition in which leave has been granted on
12.1.07 and released on BAIL -- moved application for suspending the
order of conviction -- the application moved by the appellant deserves
to be allowed. The order of conviction passed against the appellant by
the High Court on 1.12.2006 and the sentence awarded on 6.12.2006
are suspended and the conviction shall not be operative till the decision
of the appeal.

2007 (With Crl. A. 184 of 2007))
Dattatray Krishnaji Ghule Appellant andHitendra Manohar
Vichare Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
263(a) read Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 -appellants police officers -- both arrested under the above Acts -- BAIL
-- rejected -- appeal -- what needs to be considered is whether there is
a reasonable ground to believe that the appellants are not guilty of
the two offences, they have been charged with and further that they
are not likely to commit an offence under MCOCA while on BAIL -- fit
case for grant of BAIL to both the appellants.

2007)
Kumari Suman Pandey Appellants Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr Respondents, decided on 2/14/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arjit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Bail granting of by Lucknow Bench of Allahabad
High Court challenged The court dealing with the application for
BAIL is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not
as a matter of course there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons
for prima facie concluding why BAIL was being granted particularly
where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence
The appellant is, therefore, justified in her grievancesthat there has
been misuse of the liberty and that the appellant has unnecessarily
prolonged the trial the order of BAIL passed by the High Court is
not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.

2006)
Ramesh Chander Singh Appellant Vs. High Court of Allahabad &
Anr. Respondents, decided on 2/26/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K.
Jain.
Subject Index: Penalty -- imposing penalty of withholding increments,
with cumulative effect -- the punishment was clearly disproportionate to
the lapse alleged to have been committed by him. The imposition of the
punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect also
appears to be disproportionate to the alleged lapse -- the appellant
shall be immediately posted to the cadre of District Judge and paid all
monetary benefits due to him as a consequence thereof -- a Sessions
Judge was competent to grant BAIL and if any disciplinary proceedings
are initiated against the officer for passing such an order, it would
adversely affect the morale of subordinate judiciary and no officer
would be able to exercise this power freely and independently.
2007 SCCL.COM 330(Case/Appeal No: Petition for Special Leave to

Appeal (Crl.) No. 3986 of 2006 (With S.L.P. (Crl) No. 3987 and 3988 of
2006))
Imran Ali Petitioner Vs. Habibullah And Anr. Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh & Hon'ble Mr.
Justice H.S. Bedi.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of High Court felt persuaded to grant
BAIL -- went on to record a very detailed reasoned order holding that
prosecution has no merit -- in any event such observations are bound
to influence its mind -- the trend recently noticed, to virtually write a
judgment while disposing of an application for grant of BAIL must be
discouraged.

2007)
Shridhar Sumant Vagal Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. Respondents, decided on 3/22/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K G Balakrishnan & Hon'ble
Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Bail application -- rejected by the Bombay High Court
-- appeal -- FIR relating to counterfeit stamps and stamp paper was
registered -- a chargesheet was filed -- approval was granted for
applying Sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act, 1999 ('MCOC Act' for short) in regard to the said
case -- the appellant was working as a Joint Commissioner of Police,
(Crime), Mumbai, from 21.3.2002 to 17.3.2003. The investigation
disclosed involvement of the appellant in the counterfeit stamp case, he
was arrested on 7.11.2003 -- the appellant has already been in jail for
more than three years which is the maximum period of punishment that
could be imposed under Section 24 of the MCOC Act. Whether the
involvement of Appellant goes beyond the scope of section 24 of the
Act, to fall under section 3(2) of the Act, is an issue yet to be decided -order of High Court set aside and Special Court Pune directed to release
the appellant on BAIL.

2007)
Gomti Appellant Vs. Thakurdas and Ors. Respondents, decided
on 4/13/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Bail entitlement the present appeal is by the
complainant alleging that her husband has been killed by the
respondent 1 to 5 on 12.9.1998, and the concerned respondents are
not entitled to BAIL the respondents 1 to 5 faced trial of alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
201, 120(B) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under
Sections 3(2) and (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 3(2) and (5) of the Arms
Act, 1954 sentenced to imprisonment for life and were convicted in
terms of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and other sentences in
respect of Sections 148, 201 and Section 3(2) and 5 of the SCST Act.
However, they were acquitted of the charges relatable to Sections 25 of
the Arms Act and Section 120 B IPC the order directing suspension of
sentence and grant of BAIL is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.

2007)
Gajanand Agarwal Petitioner Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. With
Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2007 Respondents, decided on
4/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- the offences indicated were
punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 406 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -- the reasoning given by the High Court
that only the family members earlier did not lodge reports and,
therefore, prima facie throws doubt about alleged torture, is another
conclusion which was not required to be given while dealing with the
BAIL application -- the High Court has virtually written an order of
acquittal by commenting on the evidentiary value of evidence on
record. This is impermissible. Only broad features of the case are to be
noted. Elaborate analysis of the evidence is to be avoided -- the
impugned orders of the High Court are indefensible and are set aside.

Sri Nanjappa Appellant Vs. Union of India Respondent, decided
on 4/17/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice CJI K G Balakrishnan and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R V Raveendran.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 439
petition under rejected by the High Court order challenged
appellant submitted that he was neither a member of the Telgi's crime
syndicate nor had he helped A. K. Telgi and his associates in any
manner to carry on his illegal activities in Jail the appellant has
already been in Jail for more than three years and four months.
Charges were framed only in August, 2006 and 256 witnesses have
been cited. The trial in the criminal case is likely to take a long time for
completion. Having regard to the nature of involvement alleged and the
role attributed to the appellant, and the period already spent by the
appellant in Jail, fit case for grant of BAIL.
2004)
Abdulvahab Abdul Majid Shaikh and Ors. Appellants Vs. State of
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Tada Act, Indian Passport
Act, Motor Vehicles Act and Bombay Police Act 11 accused charged
under The Designated Judge, though accepted the evidence of
recovery of the money from the two accused, held that the prosecution
could not prove their identity and hence no importance was attached to
the recovery effected by the police The short question that arises for
consideration is whether the confession given by A-9 Musakhan @
Babakhan could be relied upon the conviction of these three
appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 342, 365,
384 read with Section 120-B of the IPC is only to be confirmed. Criminal
Appeal No. 525 of 2004 would accordingly stand dismissed and the
appellants would surrender to their BAIL bonds the acquittal of A-6
and A-7 was correct. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed
accordingly there is no evidence to show that these accused were in
possession of any arms or ammunition during the commission of the
crime, for which they have been charged. The accused have been
rightly acquitted. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1316-17/2004 are without any
merits and dismissed accordingly.

1999)
State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Siraj Ahmed Nisar Ahmed
and Ors. Respondents, decided on 5/7/2007.
Subject Index: Tada Act Section 19 State of Maharashtra has
preferred this appeal under the provisions of Section 19 the
prosecution has failed to prove that the Fiat Car which was found
standing at the place of incident was purchased by accused Mushraf to
link him with the other accused persons and with the conspiracy which
is alleged to have been hatched by the accused.

2006)
Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed Petitioner Vs. Mehmood Hussain
and Anr. Respondents, decided on 5/18/2007.
Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Bail granted to the appellant challenged in this
appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of the Bombay
High Court canceling the BAIL granted to the appellant by exercising
power under Section 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code case

involving alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 324
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 proper to remand the matter to the
High Court for fresh consideration of the application for cancellation of
BAIL. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the
concerned court on 14th June, 2007.

2007)
Hamida Appellant Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice A.K. Mathur.
Subject Index: Bail granting of respondents accused who were
granted BAIL under section 482 Cr. P.C. by High Court for offences
under sections 324, 352 and 506 accused respondents could apply
for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one
under Section 304 IPC. They deliberately did not do so and filed a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to circumvent the procedure
ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is
spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with
some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure,
as is the case here, or to delay the trial which will enable the accused
to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they
may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting
in miscarriage of justice.

2006)
Swamy Sharaddanandea @ Murali Monahar Mishra Appellant Vs.
State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 5/18/2007.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302 conviction
under by Trial court and High Court deserves to the upheld
Markandey Katju inability to agree with brother judge as to the
reduction of death sentence to life sentence this case falls within the
category of rarest of rare cases and hence the appellant deserves death
sentence merely because a long lapse of time has occurred between
the commission of the offence and the final ecision of this Court the
death penalty cannot be imposed it is not correct to say that only
direct evidence is strong evidence while circumstantial evidence is weak
evidence. Both kinds of evidence can be strong in a given situation. The
only requirement in circumstantial evidence is that the chain of links
connecting the accused with the crime should be established beyond
reasonable doubt The accused is an unmitigated and diabolical rogue

who could go to any extent, including murder to achieve his object of
grabbing huge amount of property of the deceased. He was in a
dominating position over the deceased who had become dependant on
him, and he took full advantage of this situation. He had motive and
opportunity for committing this ghastly crime.

Satish Jaggi Appellant Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Ors.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302/120B
application for BAIL rejected by the trial Court confirmed by High
Court appeal in granting or non-granting of BAIL in non-bailable
offence, the primary consideration is the nature and gravity of the
offence. In the present case the respondent No.3 is accused of
murdering a rival political leader while campaigning in the election
learned Chief Justice did not consider the nature and the gravity of the
offence while considering the BAIL application of the accused the
findings recorded by the learned Chief Justice, virtually amounts to the
regular trial pointing out the deficiency and reliability/credibility of
prosecution evidence the order of the learned Chief Justice granting
the BAIL is not sustainable in law.

2006)
Swamy Sharaddanandea @ Murali Monahar Mishra Appellant Vs.
State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 5/18/2007.
Subject Index: S.B. Sinha : Murder of wife for the purpose of
usurping property is a rarest of rare crime statistically? It cannot be
conclusively said that murder of wife for usurping property is a
particularly rarest of rare incident. It could, of course, be a rare incident
in a case of this nature 'life sentence' must be meant to be 'life
sentence'. Markandey Katju : inability to agree with brother judge as
to the reduction of death sentence to life sentence this case falls
within the category of rarest of rare cases and hence the appellant
deserves death sentence merely because a long lapse of time has
occurred between the commission of the offence and the final decision
of this Court the death penalty cannot be imposed it is not correct to
say that only direct evidence is strong evidence while circumstantial
evidence is weak evidence. Both kinds of evidence can be strong in a
given situation. The only requirement in circumstantial evidence is that
the chain of links connecting the accused with the crime should be
established beyond reasonable doubt the accused is an unmitigated

and diabolical rogue who could go to any extent, including murder to
achieve his object of grabbing huge amount of property of the
deceased. He was in a dominating position over the deceased who had
become dependant on him, and he took full advantage of this situation.
He had motive and opportunity for committing this ghastly crime.Matter
referred to larger Bench, in view of the difference of opinion in regard to
sentence.

2001)
Om Prakash Appellant Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Respondent,
Subject Index: Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954 Section 7(1)
read with Section 16 accused found guilty of the offence sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.2000/with default stipulation appeal revision before the High Court
dismissed sample of Khoya purchased milk fat found was 19.07%
as against the minimum prescribed standard of 20%
learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the commutation
of sentence under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short the 'Cr.P.C.) was a matter within the discretion of State
Government the appellant has already suffered custody for more
than three months. This Court directs that a sum of Rs.7,500/-, as fine,
be deposited within a period of six weeks from today. The appellant
shall move the appropriate Government for commutation of the
custodial sentence accused to remain on BAIL in the mean time.

2001)
Arvind Kumar and another Petitioner Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh Respondent, decided on 7/24/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 306 Dowry
Prohibition Act 1961 Section 4 conviction under appeal
the presumption contemplated under Section 113A is clearly attracted
in the facts of the present case and the accused has not led any
evidence to rebut the said presumption the conviction recorded and
the sentence imposed upon Arvind Kumar accused No.1 bys the Trial
Court and confirmed by the High Court are maintained. Arvind Kumaraccused No.1 is on BAIL. He is directed to surrender before the Trial
Court forthwith and to suffer the remaining period of sentence. The
appeal of Arvind Kumar is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and
sentence of second accused is, however, set aside.

2007)
Maulana Naseeruddin Mohd. Haneefuddin Appellant Vs. State of
Subject Index: Bail rejected appeal an FIR was lodged on
4.4.2003 with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging that a
conspiracy was hatched by Mufti Sufiyan and Rasulkhan Party at
Ahmedabad and Hyderabad to commit murder of Hindu leaders through
boys by imparting them training in arms in Pakistan. The complaint was
filed for the alleged commission of offences punishable under
Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122, 123 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short 'IPC') and Sections 25(1) (b),(c), 27 and 29 of the Arms
Act, 1959 the appellant was released on BAIL in another offence at
Hyderabad on health ground. Thereafter on 30.10.2004 he was arrested
in connection with the present offence by the Gujarat Police. He was
produced before Special POTA Court on 2.11.2004 and was remanded
till 9.11.2004. Request for further remand was rejected and the
appellant was sent to judicial custody the stand of the State on the
other hand was that there is a confessional statement of the accused
recorded under Section 32 of POTA. It is the appellant who inspired
young boys to take Jihad training in Pakistan. There is nothing
on record to indicate that there was any coercion for giving
the confessional statement there is no time statutorily fixed during
which the confessional statement, if any, can be retracted; but it has to
be done within a reasonable time not fit case to grant BAIL.

2007)
Idrishan Yakubkhan Pathan Appellant Vs. State of Gujarat
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat .
Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2000 34(1) (4)
challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of
the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 34(1)
(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2000 there seems to be some
confusion about the factual position The confusion arose before the
High Court relating to the case numbers. There is no dispute that
Criminal Appeal No.1288 of 2004 before the High Court related to POTA
Case No.12 of 2003. It appears that the High Court permitted the
appellant to take a proper proceeding seeking his release on BAIL so far
as POTA Case No.12 of 2003 is concerned. The High Court
apparently failed to notice that Criminal Appeal No.1288 of 2004
related to POTA Case No.12 of 2003

2007)
Deepak Singchi Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan and another
Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Bail granted by by a learned Single Judge
Rajasthan High Court challenged in this appeal there is a need to
indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why BAIL was
being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having
committed a serious offence the impugned order of the High Court is
indefensible and the same is set aside. The matter is remitted to the
High Court for fresh consideration of the BAIL application Needless to
say the respondent No.2 shall forthwith surrender to custody because of
cancellation of his BAIL. The BAIL application can be considered after
only he surrenders to custody.

2005)
Guljag Industries Appellant Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 section 98(5) the
scope of Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 which is in
pari materia to Section 22A (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

2007)
State of Gujarat Petitioner Vs. Narendra K. Amin Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice TARUN CHATTERJEE and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN.
Subject Index: Writ Petition Habeas Corpus SLP -- against order
of granting BAIL to the accused respondent's position to influence,
induce or coerce must be taken into consideration seriously before
granting anticipatory BAIL Appeal allowed Order granting
anticipatory BAIL set aside Directed the trial court to deal with
regular BAIL appeal under section 439 Cr.P.C. 1973.

2007)
State of Maharashtra & Others Appellant Vs. Vashishtha
Rambhau Andhale Respondents, decided on 8/17/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice CJI K. G. Balakrishnan and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Bail granting of to the respondent Inspector of
Police Challenged by State of Maharashtra respondent submitted
that the respondent was not holding such a responsible post as to be
able to assist Telgi and his associates in the manner suggested by the
prosecution and that the High Court has not erred in granting BAIL
to him not necessary, at this stage, to interfere with that order
and set aside the BAIL granted to the respondent.

2007)
C.B.I. Appellant Vs. Pradeep Bhalchandra Sawant & Another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice CJI K. G. Balakrishnan and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Bail granting of challanged by CB9 by special
leave respondent arrested order stamp scam general for the
appellant contended The respondent is arrayed as accused No. 65
in C.R. No. 135 of 2002 initially registered at Bund Garden Police
Station, Pune for different offences under the Indian Penal Code as well
as under Sections 3 and 24 read with Section 2(1)(a)(d) of the
Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act ('MCOCA') read with
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act that
there were no such acts of commission or omission on the side of the
respondent and that it was a case where the respondent himself was
only a subordinate officer not in a position to take some of the actions
which are alleged to have been not taken by him not necessary
interfere with the order granting BAIL.

2007)
Sudha Verma Appellant Vs. State of UP & Another Respondents,
Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: Bail granted in a murder case challenged in
this appeal challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by
a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court granting BAIL to
respondent No.2-Dinesh Kumar. BAIL was granted primarily on the
ground that the co-accused has been released on the bail and at the
most the case is one under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and not Section 302 IPC the High Court has not indicated
as to what is the relevance of grant of BAIL to co-accused ignoring that
the respondent No.2 was the alleged assailant who fired the gun and
killed the deceased. Strangely the conclusions, that there was no
motive or there was a sudden quarrel appear to have been arrived at
without any discussion and/or without reference to any particular
material. The impugned order is unsustainable and is set aside. The
matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the BAIL application
afresh keeping in view the principles of law.

2007)
Union of India Petitioner Vs. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari
Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: NDPs Act, 1985 sections 8, 15, 27A and 29
charge under grant of BAIL challenged allegation was that the
respondent was found to be in possession of huge quantity of poppy
straw. It is the case of the prosecution that the raiding party seized
nearly 400 Kg. of poppy straw from the possession of the accusedrespondent. The prayer for BAIL made by the respondent was rejected
by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Varanasi. The High Court by the
impugned order accepted the prayer for BAIL on the ground that the
recovery was not from the exclusive possession of the accusedrespondent and other members of the family are involved in the case. It
was noted that the respondent had no criminal history the expression
used in Section 37 (1)(b) (ii) is

2007)
Jaya Simha Petitioner Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, Tarun
Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 439 the
order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, rejecting
Criminal Petition No.196 of 2007 filed by the Appellant under section
439 of Criminal Procedure Code is under challenge in this appeal a
FIR relating to counterfeit stamps and stamp-papers was registered as
Crime No. 545 of 2000 in the Upparpet Police Station, Bangalore,
against Abdul Karim Telgi, in respect of offences punishable under
sections 255 to 260, 265, 467, 468, 471 to 475, 420 read with section
120B IPC. On the basis of the investigation report of the Stamp
Investigation Team (for short 'STAMPIT'), Crime No. 1100/2002 was
registered at Madiwala Police Station, Bangalore, on 16.10.2002 for
offences punishable under section 120B, 255 to 258, 260 and 420 IPC
read with section 63B of Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 against the said
A.K. Telgi and others. In pursuance of the directions issued by this
Court on 15.3.2004, CBI took up further investigation in the matter
the appellant herein who was working as the Senior Superintendent of
Central Prison, Bangalore, and one Nanjappa (working as Asst.
Superintendent of Central Prison, Bangalore) were impleaded as
accused Nos. 32 and 33 under supplementary charge-sheet filed in
Crime No. 1100/2002 alleging that they had committed offences
punishable under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 3, 4 and 25 of
Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 while challenging
the said order, the appellant contends that he was neither a member of
the Telgi's crime syndicate nor had he helped A. K. Telgi and his
associates in any manner to carry on their illegal activities in Jail the
appellant has already been in Jail for about three years and nine
months direct the Special Judge [35th Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge], Bangalore, to enlarge the appellant on BAIL.
2007 SCCL.COM 1002(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 330331 of 2000)

State of Punjab Appellant Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others
Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302 read with
section 34 conviction under since the accused did not claim to
have suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased, the question of
explaining the injuries on the accused in that sense did not arise the
trial court on analysing the evidence noticed that since the accused
persons were dragging the dead body of the deceased to the house of
the accused Ajit Singh alias Jeet Singh, there was possibility of their
clothes being stained with blood rather than leaving trail of blood. The
Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he had collected blood
stained earth from several places the impugned judgment of the High
Court directing acquittal of the respondents is clearly unsustainable.
The same is set aside. The order of the trial court is restored.
Respondents who are on BAIL shall be taken into custody forthwith to
serve out the remaining sentence.

2007)
Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Appellants Vs. State of
Uttaranchal & Others Respondents, decided on 10/9/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, R.V. Raveendran and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Non-bailable warrants issuance of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 section 482 appeal against judgement
passed in Application under section 482 the appellants had to file an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because the Special Judicial
Magistrate, Rishikesh issued a non-bailable warrant against the
appellants on the basis of First Information Report under Sections
420/467 IPC filed by the respondents the veracity of the facts alleged
by the appellants and the respondents can only be ascertained on the
basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent
jurisdiction. The dispute in question is purely of civil nature and
respondent no.3 has already instituted a civil suit in the court of Civil
Judge. In the facts and circumstances of this case, initiating criminal
proceedings by the respondents against the appellants is clearly an
abuse of the process of the court the powers possessed by the High
Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court
must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles even if all the averments made in the FIR
are taken to be correct, the case for prosecution under sections 420 and
467 IPC is not made out against the appellants. To prevent abuse of the
process and to secure the ends of justice, it becomes imperative to
quash the FIR and any further proceedings emanating therefrom as
far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice
in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or
the BAILable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either
BAILable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny
of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious
consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants.
The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint
or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court cannot be sustained.

2007)
Bishan Singh & Another Appellant Vs. The State Respondent,
Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 147 and 308/149
conviction under before an accused can be held to be guilty under
Section 308 IPC, it was necessary to arrive at a finding that the
ingredients thereof, namely, requisite intention or knowledge was
existing. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that such an intention
or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause culpable homicide is
required to be proved. Six persons allegedly accosted the injured. They
had previous enmity. Although overt-act had been attributed against
each of the accused who were having lathis, only seven injuries had
been caused and out of them only one of them was grievous, being a
fracture on the arm, which was not the vital part of the body the
accused, could not be said to have committed any offence under
Section 308 IPC. The same would fall under Sections 323 and 325
thereof while imposing punishment in a case of this nature, the court
is required to take into consideration the factors which may weigh with
the court for taking a lenient view in the matter. The incident is of 1984.
23 years have elapsed. Appellants had all along remained on BAIL. It is
not stated that they had ever misused the privilege of BAIL it may
not be proper for this Court to send the accused persons back to prison
while their substantive sentence may be reduced to the period
undergone, they should pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) each; failing which they should undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one year each.

State of Delhi Petitioner Vs. Jitti Respondent, decided on
10/12/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 section 18 and 41 conviction
under sentence restricted to the period already undergone from
accused Jitti, 22 Kgs. of poppy straw powder was found whereas from
other jute bag 23 Kgs. of poppy straw powder was recovered. Thus in
all, 45 Kgs of poppy straw powder was found. Samples were taken from
each jute bag and placed in two bags. The remaining poppy straw
powder was kept in the same jute bags again. Usual seals were affixed.
Samples were then sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The
result disclosed that samples were found to contain poppy straw powder
taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances and factual
scenario, namely, that the respondent-accused is in jail since about ten
years, the High Court partly allowed his appeal and ordered to release
him, the present appeal challenging the said decision is filed by the
State, the respondent be released on BAIL as he was unable to furnish
sureties since the respondent had undergone sentence of almost ten
years , he should be set at liberty unless he is required in any other
offence. As and when the question raised in these appeals will come up
for consideration in an appropriate case, it will be decided on its own
merits.

State of Maharashtra & Another Appellants Vs. Mohd. Sajid
Husain Mohd. S. Husain etc. Respondents, decided on
10/10/2007.

Subject Index: Indian Penal code, 1860 sections 376, 343 read with
section 34 and Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act offence under
anticipatory BAIL granted appeal the High Court ought not to
have granted anticipatory BAIL to the respondents. The impugned
judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly.

2003)
Sayed Abul Ala Appellants Vs. Union of India & Others
Subject Index: Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act, 1988 detention under period of detention is over
validity of the detention order questioned on the premise that
unless the order of detention is set aside, a proceeding may be initiated
against him under Chapter VA of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 no doubt antecedents of the detenu would be a
relevant factor but the same by itself may not be sufficient to press and
order of detention in as much as the principles which govern the field so
as to enable the court to arrive at a decision that the order of detention
can be validly passed despite the detenu being in custody are: if the
authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in
custody; (2) if he had a reason to believe on the basis of reliable
material placed before him (a) that there is a real possibility of his
being released on BAIL, and (b) that on being released, he would in all
probability indulge in prejudicial activities; and (3) it is felt essential to
detain him to prevent him from so doing the order of detention
passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained.

2007)
Savitri Goenka Appellant Vs. Kusum Lata Damant and others
Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Bail application the practice of converting
applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to one for BAIL in terms of
Section 438 or 439 Cr.P.C. has not been approved by this Court
direction was given for issuance of notice and service on the appellant
which has not been done by respondent no.1-accused. The fact that the
charge-sheet has been filed or BAIL has been granted is really of no
consequence because of the fact that relief in the regular BAIL
application appears to have been granted to respondent no.1 in view of
the interim protection given by the High Court to the accused by the
impugned order in view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order

is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.

2006)
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Appellant Vs. CBI through
its Director Respondent, decided on 11/30/2007.
Subject Index: Bail application on the ground that the appellant
has been in custody for more than seven years and that his conduct in
jail has been exemplary that on account of the death of his father,
there is nobody available to him to pursue the present case that no
inculpatory evidence has come on record justifying his continued
incarceration despite the orders of this Court from time to time, the
trial was no where near completion and, finally that his medical
condition required sophisticated life saving treatment which was only
possible outside jail held in the light of the facts that several BAIL
applications filed by the appellant raising almost similar issues have
been rejected no case for release on BAIL is made out the demise of
the appellant's father also does not ipso facto mean that he should be
released on BAIL more particularly on account of the serious charges
against him.

2007)
Sanjay Kumar Kedia Appellant Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau &
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 sections 37 and 67 notice under
appellant a highly qualified individual set 2 Companies filed
application for BAIL the High Court which was dismissed on the ground
that a prima facie case under section 24 and 29 made out a BAIL
application was thereafter filed by the appellant before the Special
Judge which too was rejected on 28.5.2007 with the observations that
the investigation was still in progress the evidence so far collected
showed that the appellant was in fact a facilitator between buyers and
certain pharmacies either owned or controlled by him or associated with
the two companies and that Section 79 of the Technology Act could not
by any stretch of imagination guarantee immunity from prosecution
under the provisions of the Act the appellant and his associates were
not innocent intermediaries or network service providers as defined
under section 79 of the Technology Act but the said business was only a
facade and camouflage for more sinister activity. In this situation,
Section 79 will not grant immunity to an accused who has violated the
provisions of the Act as this provision gives immunity from prosecution

for an offence only under Technology Act itself in the face of
overwhelming inculpatory evidence it is not possible to give the finding
envisaged under Section 37 of the Act for the grant of BAIL that there
were reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant was not guilty
of the offence alleged, or that he would not resume his activities should
BAIL be granted.

2007 with Criminal Appeal No.1607 of 2007)
State of Punjab Appellant (S) Vs. Raninder Singh & another and
Jagjit Singh Respondent (S), decided on 11/19/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Anticipatory BAIL granted by Punjab & Haryana High
Court no interference is called for.

with Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.14939))
State of Haryana & others Appellants Vs. Dinesh Kumar
Subject Index: Recruitment of constable drivers withholding of
important information in the first of the two appeals, the respondent
had not surrendered to the police but had appeared before the
Magistrate with his lawyer of his own volition and was immediately
granted BAIL. Admittedly, therefore, the respondent had not
surrendered to the police but had voluntarily appeared before the
Magistrate and had prayed for BAIL and was released on BAIL, so that
as per the respondent s understanding at no point of time was he taken
into custody or arrested as to the second of the two appeals, the
appellants in response to the query in column 14, had quite truthfully
answered that they had not been convicted by any Court of any offence,
since they had been acquitted of the charges brought against them.
With regard to column 13(A), the appellants who had been implicated in
FIR 108 dated 26th May 2002 under Sections 323/324/34 Indian Penal
Code of Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, Mahendergarh, appeared
before the Ilaka Magistrate on 7th June, 2002, and were released on
their personal bonds without being placed under arrest or being taken
into custody. The information disclosed by them was held to be
suppression of the fact that they had been involved in a criminal case
though the tenor of the query was not to that effect and was confined
to the question as to whether they had been arrested one of the
common questions which, therefore, need to be answered in both these
appeals is whether the manner in which they had appeared before the
Magistrate and had been released without being taken into formal
custody, could amount to arrest for the purpose of the query in Column
13A what constitutes arrest and custody in relation to a criminal
proceeding and the decision in respect thereof may have a bearing on
the fate of the respondent in this appeal and that of the appellants in
the other appeal in relation to their recruitment as Constable-Drivers in
the Haryana Police.

2008)
Union of India Appellant Vs. Anil Chanana & another
Subject Index: Customs Act, 1962 sections 132 and 135 (1)(a)
by the impugned judgment, High Court has upheld Order
No.2/CCC(DZ)/SCM/2006 passed by Chief Commissioner of Customs
(Compounding Authority) compounding the offences under Sections 132
and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on 12.8.04 Anil was placed
under arrest for having committed offences punishable under Sections
132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, "1962 Act") for failure
to declare dutiable goods in Customs Declaration Form and for having
walked through the Green Channel with intent to evade the payment of
duty and for making willful mis-statements and suppression of material
facts. On 16.8.04 Anil voluntarily deposited customs duty amounting to
Rs.47,72,521. On 19.8.04 he was granted BAIL after he had deposited
the duty the compounding mechanism in Section 137(3) is to be
allowed only in cases of doubtful benefit to the Revenue and to prevent
needlessly proliferating litigation and holding up of collections.
Compounding cannot be allowed if there are apparent contradictions,
inconsistencies or incompleteness in the case of the applicant before the
Compounding Authority. It is the duty of the Compounding Authority to
ascertain such contradictions before compounding is ordered. In the
present case, different versions given by Anil in his statement under
Section 108, in his first BAIL Application and in his Application for
compounding itself disqualifies Anil from claiming the benefit of
compounding under Section 137(3) of the 1962 Act.

2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2008)
Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Jayeshbhai @ Panchabhai
Muljibhai Satodiya Appellant(s) Vs. State of Gujarat & others
Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja & another Respondent(s), decided
on 1/29/2008.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302, 307, 143,
147, 148, 149, 341, 120B, 201 IPC and sections, 25(1) A, (1-a) 27 of
the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act 2 cases
registered under granting of BAIL cancellation the High Court
has completely ignored the general principles, for grant of BAIL in a
heinous crime of commission of murder in which the sentence, if
convicted, is death or life imprisonment in the second case, another
learned Judge has granted the BAIL by the impugned order which runs
into 22 pages. The findings recorded therein touch upon the merits of
the case. The learned Judge has proceeded as if an order of acquittal is
being passed it was not a fit case to grant BAIL to the respondents in
this case as well trial Court is directed to take up the trial on day to
day basis and, if possible, conclude the same within the next six months
from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The
prosecution as well as defence counsel is directed to cooperate in
conducting the trial on day to day basis.
2008 SCCL.COM 137(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.251, 252

of 2008)
Narayan Ghosh @ Nantu with Sankar Adeya Appellant Vs. State
of Orissa Respondent, decided on 2/4/2008.
Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 120 B, 302/34 and
section, 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act trial under application for
BAIL it would be for the trial court to consider and appreciate the
evidence which comes before it in support of the plea of conspiracy and
to arrive at the correct finding BAIL not granted medical help to be
given to Sankar Adeya.

2008)
Som Mittal Appellant Vs. Government of Karnataka Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice CJI., K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V.
Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 200
complaint filed against the appellant for taking cognizance of an
offence punishable under section 30(3) of the Karnataka Shops &
Commercial Establishments Act for violation of section 25 of the said
Act. Learned Magistrate took cognizance by order dated 30.12.2005
and directed issue of notice to the appellant. The appellant filed a
petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the said order
dated 30.12.2005 and for quashing the complaint. The High Court, by
order dated 28.3.2006, rejected the prayer for quashing the complaint,
but altered the offence in respect of which cognizance was taken as one
under section 30(1) read with section 25 of the said Act. The said order
of the High Court was challenged by the appellant in this appeal the
appeal was heard by a Bench consisting of H.K.Sema and Markandey
Katju, JJ. By the main judgment dated 29.1.2008 Sema, J. dismissed
the appeal, making it clear that the court was not expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case and the learned Magistrate shall
decide the maintainability of the complaint at the time of framing of the
charge uninfluenced by any observations made in his concurring
judgment, Katju, J. agreed that the appeal should be dismissed without
expressing any opinion on merits. He stated that he was rendering a
separate opinion as he was not in agreement with the view expressed
by Sema, J. that the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used
only in the "rarest of rare cases", though he agreed with the
observation that the said power should be used sparingly. He was of the
view that the words 'rarest of rare cases' are used only with reference
to the death penalty for an offence under section 302 IPC however in
paras 17 to 39 of his judgment, the learned Judge expressed concern
over the situation prevailing in Uttar Pradesh on account of omission of
section 438 Cr.P.C. relating to anticipatory BAIL by an amendment to
the Code by section 9 of U.P.Act 16 of 1976 when the words 'rarest of
rare cases' are used after the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'
while describing the scope of section 482, those words merely
emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words
'sparingly and with circumspection'. They mean that the power under
section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or
routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for
quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a
miscarriage of justice this Court has repeatedly cautioned that while
rendering judgments, courts should only deal with the subject matter of
the case and issues involved therein. Courts should desist from issuing
directions affecting executive or legislative policy, or general directions
unconnected with the subject matter of the case in so far as the
observations, recommendations, and directions in paras 17 to 39 of the
concurring judgment, suffice it to say that they do not relate to the
subject matter of the criminal appeal and being the expression of an
expectation or hope by only one of the learned Judges constituting the
Bench and not agreed to by the other, is not a decision, order or
direction of the Court.

2008)
Akhilesh Kumar Singh Appellant Vs. State of U.P. Th. D.G.C.
(Crl.) & another Respondent, decided on 2/27/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V.
Raveendran and Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302 and 395
read with section 120B application for BAIL moved before the
sessions court rejected another moved allowed appeal The
trial is being continued and most of the witnesses must have been
examined by this time. If the trial is not already over, the Sessions
Judge, Rai Bareli is directed to complete the same within a period of
three months and, if for any reason, except the non-cooperation of the
accused, the trial is delayed beyond three months, the appellant would
be at liberty to move the Sessions Court for BAIL and, without being
influenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned
order, the same would be considered by the Sessions Judge on merits
and appropriate order shall be passed.

2008)
Mohinder Kaur Appellant Vs. State of Punjab Respondents,
petition under filed before the High Court and order passed by single
judge challenged the appellant was not serving as an inspector but
was a constable who had retired about a decade back. Therefore the
conclusion of the High Court that she was in a position to make the
investigation ineffective does not have any foundation. The other
directions given like recovery of dowry articles etc. need not have been
given while dealing with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed
by her. The directions for seizing the appellant's passport also could not
have been given a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by her the
directions regarding deputation of a senior police officer to monitor the
investigation and/or recover the dowry articles to seize her passport
stand deleted the parameters for exercising of power under Section
438 Cr.P.C. has been highlighted by this Court in Adri Dharan Das v.
State of W.B. (2005(4)SCC 303) in case the appellant surrenders
before the concerned court and moves for BAIL the application shall be
disposed of expeditiously preferably on the date it is filed.
2008 SCCL.COM 320(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.2003 of 2008

with Criminal Appeal No.502 of 2008)
Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel with Ajitbhai Revandas Patel and
another Appellants Vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others
with State of Gujarat and another Respondents, decided on
3/14/2008.
Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr.
complaint petition filed appellants granted BAIL subject to the
condition that they would not leave India without permission of the
Court application for cancellation a BAIL filed on an application
filed by the 3rd respondent on 24th April, 1998 the husband of the
appellant was declared an absconder and a public proclamation was
issued in terms of Section 82(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
attaching her properties if she did not present before the Learned
Magistrate within 30 days from the issuance of the said publication
on their failure to remain present within a period of 30 days their
properties were subjected to order of attachment under Section 85 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 5th January, 2004
the District Magistrate was asked by the Leaned Metropolitan Magistrate
to take further action in terms of Section 85 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by holding a public auction of the said properties. In the said
order it was wrongly sated that the properties belonged to the
appellants and husband of the 3rd respondent, whereas in fact
Appellant No.1 alone was the owner thereof appellant and her
husband returned to India. They filed an application for cancellation of
the said Standing Warrants Sonalben Rameshchandra Desai is an
Advocate. She filed a large number of cases against her husband and
in-laws. She initially filed a Complaint Petition before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
which was registered as Case No.1662 of 1996. It was transferred to
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda. It has since been
dismissed for default. She initiated another criminal proceeding against
the appellants and their family members under Sections 323, 452, 427,
504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the same proceeding has
also been dismissed as withdrawn. Another criminal case was initiated
by her against appellant No.2, his son and another, being Case No.47 of
1996 under Section 406, 420, 468 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
which is still pending. Another case, being No.2338 of 2006 was filed by
her under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Another case under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code being Case No.2145 of 1993 was
filed against the appellants gross injustice has been caused to the
appellant. She did not deserve such harsh treatments at the hands of
the High Court. Respondent No.3 speaks of her own human rights,
forgetting the human rights of the appellant, far less the funadamental
right of life and liberty conferred on an accused in terms of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India the right of property is no longer a
fundamental right. But still it is a constitutional right. Apart from
constitutional right it is also a human right. The procedures laid down
for deprivation thereof must be scrupulously complied with the
interest of justice shall be subserved if the impugned judgments are set
aside.

2008)
Rekha Patel Appellant Vs. Pankaj Verma and others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Constitution of India Article 226 petition under

challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of
the Allahabad High Court passed on a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution complaint filed by Appellant under sections 498A,
323, 504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a writ
petition for quashing the F.I.R. and for stay of arrest pending the
disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 1.11.2006.
By the impugned order dated 7.11.2006 the High Court declined to
accept the prayer for stay of arrest of the respondents presently
Section 438 Cr.P.C. has no application to the State of U.P. Even
otherwise, as noted in Adri Dharan Das's case (supra), after surrender
of accused and rejection of his BAIL application, the protection of the
nature granted by the High Court cannot be given the respondents
had moved for BAIL and have been granted BAIL by the learned
Sessions Judge concerned this Court declines to interfere in the
appeal; but have considered it necessary to indicate the correct
parameters so that the mistake committed by the High Court is not
repeated.

2008)
Khilari Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondents,
conviction under challenging the conviction appeal has been filed and
simultaneously prayer for being released on BAIL during the pendency
of the appeal was filed. By the impugned order the Division Bench
accepted the prayer and granted BAIL to the respondent no.2. The High
Court noted that the allegation was that the incident took place on
9.3.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. and accused no.2 and his two sons
assaulted Shiv Kumar mercilessly with iron rods and he succumbed
to the injuries the only stand taken was that the ante mortem
injuries on the body of the deceased included three contusions, one
abraded contusion and four lacerated wounds of different dimensions on
various parts of the body which could not have been caused by iron
rods there was complete non-application of mind and nonconsideration of the relevant aspects.

2008)
Azhar Sah Appellant Vs. State of Bihar & others Respondents,
Justice P.P. Naoleker.

Subject Index: FIR BAIL granting of there is also the version
of the eye-witnesses that the attack was made on Aseem Sah (since
deceased) by different persons. On the cumulative assessment of these
facts, the High Court was of the view that the case was made out by
respondent No. 4 for grant of BAIL and he was accordingly granted BAIL
by the High Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellantcomplainant is before this Court by way of this appeal by special leave
it cannot be said with certainty at this stage that it was respondent
No. 4 who caused injuries to the deceased or was the only person who
was responsible for causing injuries resulting in death of Aseem Sah
appeal dismissed.

2008)
Abdul Ghaffar & Anr. etc Appellant Vs. State of Bihar
Justice P.P. Naoleker.
Subject Index: FIR no infirmity it is contended by the learned
counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely
implicated as the other party was the attackers and in the process of
their attack five persons died and a number of other persons were
seriously injured the accused-appellants were named as the persons
who had caused serious injuries to Ajay Sharma, nephew of the
complainant, who later on succumbed to injuries. When the appellants
have been named in the FIR which was lodged immediately after the
incident, at this stage this court does not find any infirmity in the
impugned order of the High Court and that of the Sessions Court
whereunder the accused-appellants were not released on BAIL.
2008 SCCL.COM 475(Case/Appeal No: Motion Case (civil) 6016 of

2007)
Padma Charan Patra Appellant Vs. State of Orissa Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Bail application for relaxation of the conditions of
BAIL enforced by order dt.12.5.2006 while granting BAIL to the
petitioner some of the co-accused approached the High Court and
obtained BAIL on the same terms and conditions as was granted by this
Court and subsequently they have also obtained relaxation of the first
two conditions from the High Court first two conditions relaxed.
2008 SCCL.COM 487 (Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 671 of

2008)
Siddharth Jain Appellant Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi through
Commissioner of Police Respondent, decided on 4/16/2008.
Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act sections 7 and 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) conviction under appellant filed an
appeal in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi along with an application
for BAIL under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned
Single Judge admitted the appeal but refused to grant BAIL to the
appellant, against which the present appeal by grant of special leave
has been filed. This Court on 08.01.2008, while issuing notice, granted
interim BAIL to the appellant appellant deserves to be released on
BAIL during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court. By our order
dated 08.01.2008, appellant was given interim BAIL. The said order is
made absolute till the appeal is finally decided by the High Court.

2008)
Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Appellant Vs. State of Gujarat Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 439(2)
cancelling the BAIL in terms of section 439 (2) the application under
Section 439(2) was filed by the State of Gujarat through Investigating
Officer, C.I.D. (Crime), Gandhinagar for cancellation of BAIL granted to
the appellant by order dated 5.10.2007 for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 364, 365, 368, 193, 197, 201, 120B, 420, 342
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections
25 (1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1950.

2008)
Dr. Narendra K Amin Appellant Vs. State of Gujarat and another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
order of cancelling the BAIL granted to the appellant challenged once
it is found that BAIL was granted on untenable grounds, same can be
cancelled. The stand that there was no supervening circumstance has
no relevance in such a case irrelevant materials have been taken into
account and/or relevant materials have been kept out of consideration.
That being so, the order of granting BAIL to the appellant was certainly
vulnerable. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any
infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed.

of 2008 (With Crl.A. 522 /2008 @SLP (Crl.) No. 7157/2007) (With
Crl.A. 523 /2008 @SLP (Crl.) No. 7158/2007) (With Crl.A. 524-527 /
2008 @SLP (Crl.) No. 7159-7162/2007) (With Crl.A. 528 /2008 @SLP
(Crl.) No. 7164/2007) (With Crl.A. 529 /2008 @SLP (Crl.) No.
8114/2007))
State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Madhukar Wamanrao Smarth
Subject Index: Bail granting of challenged the parameters to be
observed by the High Court while dealing with an application for
suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL have been highlighted by this
Court in many cases it is true that the parameters to be applied in
cases where life or death sentence is imposed, may not be applicable to
other cases. But, the gravity of the offence, the sentence imposed and
several other similar factors need to be considered by the Court. The
fact that accused was on BAIL during trial is certainly not a relevant
factor the impugned order in each case is indefensible and deserves
to be set aside the High Court had not applied correct principles it
would be proper for the High Court to re-consider the matter and for
that purpose the matter is remitted to the High Court. Needless to say
the High Court shall consider all the relevant aspects and pass orders in
accordance with law.

2007)
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Appellant Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) Respondent, decided on 5/12/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mr.Justice C.M. Thakker, and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
application under for suspension of sentence and release on BAIL this
is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 389 of the Code.
Though the trial Court has acquitted the applicant-accused for the
offences with which he was charged, the High Court reversed the order
of acquittal and convicted him under Section 302, IPC and ordered him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life keeping in view the
seriousness of offence, the manner in which the crime as said to have
been committed and the gravity of offence, Court is of the view that no
case has been made out by the applicant-appellant for suspension of
sentence and grant of BAIL.

2008)
Sureshchandra Ramanlal Appellant Vs. State of Gujarat and
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chaterjee and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
439, 471, 473(a) and 120B of IPC read with section 46 of the Banking
Regulation Act appeal directed against judgment prayer made by
the appellant to enlarge him on anticipatory BAIL having regard to
the health of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that interest of
justice would be served if the appellant is enlarged on anticipatory BAIL
subject to certain conditions.

2008)
Smt. Panful Nessa Appellant Vs. Md. Miraj Ali and others
Subject Index: Cr.P.C. 1973 section 482 jurisdiction under
exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code cannot be
extended to grant of BAIL in the manner done. There was not even
consideration of the merits of the case. The High Court was clearly in
error by holding that there was no material to show that the
respondents 1 to 9 were absconders. By so observing, the High Court
completely lost sight of the fact that in the charge sheet filed
respondents 1 to 9 were shown as absconders let the respondents
appear before the concerned Court where the trial is in progress. If any
application for BAIL is made, the same shall be considered in its proper
perspective by the concerned Court.

2008)
Manjit Prakash and others Appellants Vs. Shobha Devi and
Subject Index: Bail cancelling the BAIL granted to the appellants
by the impugned order the learned Single Judge directed cancellation of
BAIL granted to the present appellants while holding that the two others
being ladies there was no need to cancel the BAIL granted to them
though various points were urged in support of the appeal primarily it
was submitted that no reasons have been given for canceling the BAIL
when a person to whom BAIL has been granted either tries to
interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence
or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities

which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, BAIL granted can be
cancelled. Rejection of BAIL stands on one footing, but cancellation of
BAIL is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual
granted and is not to be lightly resorted to even though the reappreciation of the evidence as done by the Court granting BAIL is to be
avoided, the Court dealing with an application for cancellation of BAIL
under Section 439 (2) can consider whether irrelevant materials were
taken into consideration since the High Court has not indicated any
reasons for directing cancellation of BAIL, the impugned order cannot
be maintained and is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court
to decide the matter afresh and dispose of the application filed.

2001)
Asraf Ali Appellant Vs. State of Assam Respondent, decided on
7/17/2008.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 304(1)
Conviction by the Sessions Judge Single Judge altered the conviction
no witness has stated that on the date of occurrence the accused had
caused severe injury to the deceased by assaulting him on the head
from behind. The circumstances which were relied upon by the trial
Court to find the accused guilty were not specifically brought to the
notice of the accused. Therefore, in essence, his examination under
Section 313 of the Code was rendered an empty formality. On that
count alone, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be
sustained and is set aside. The conviction recorded stands set aside.
The BAIL bond of the appellant who is on BAIL shall stand discharged.

2008)
State of Maharashtra and others Appellants Vs. Bhaurao
Punjabrao Gawande Respondent, decided on 3/3/2008.
Subject Index: Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of
Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 order of detention
passed by Commissioner of Police set aside by the High Court Partly
the present appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra and others
against the sole respondent (original petitioner) against the judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur
Bench) on October 17, 2006 in Writ Petition as a general rule, an
order of detention passed by a Detaining Authority under the relevant
'preventive detention' law cannot be set aside by a Writ Court at the
pre-execution or pre-arrest stage unless the Court is satisfied that there

are exceptional circumstances specified in Alka Subhash Gadia. The
Court must be conscious and mindful of the fact that this is a
'suspicious jurisdiction' i.e. jurisdiction based on suspicion and an action
is taken 'with a view to preventing' a person from acting in any manner
prejudicial to certain activities enumerated in the relevant detention law
a detenu cannot ordinarily seek a writ of mandamus if he does not
surrender and is not served with an order of detention and the grounds
in support of such order the case on hand, does not fall within the
category of exceptional cases and the High Court committed an error of
law in setting aside the order of detention at the pre-execution and prearrest stage.

2002 With Crl. A. Nos. 404 and 405 of 2000)
Baijnath Jha Appellant Vs. Sita Ram and another Respondents,
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure code, 1973 section 482
application under dismissal by High Court challenged allegation
against respondent No.1 was that he had committed theft of electricity
attracting penal consequences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Section 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
the respondent No.1 was released on BAIL on 7.1.1994 and on
11.2.1994 respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the learned Judicial
Magistrate alleging that the appellant in each case and aforesaid
Ravindra Kumar Singh had demanded illegal gratification. Interestingly,
no date of such demand was indicated in the complaint the
proceedings instituted were malafide, based on vague assertions and
were initiated with malafide intents and constitute sheer abuse of
process of law. No reason was shown before the High Court as to why
the complainant chose not to proceed and one of the four persons
initially named. The cases at hand fit in with category (7) of Bhajan
Lal's case the appeals are allowed and the proceedings in complaint
case No.40 of 1994 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna
City stand quashed.

2008)
Jonathan Nitin Brady Appellant Vs. State of West Bengal
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 438 by
the impugned order, the High Court has rejected the application of the
appellant for the grant of pre-arrest BAIL filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant works as a Radio Jockey at
New Delhi with the Radio Channel `Red FM 93.5', a channel owned by
Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Limited. During the course of regular
morning show called "Morning No.1" that was broadcasted only in
New Delhi from 7-11 a.m., on 24.09.2007, the appellant discussed one
Mr. Prashant Tamang's victory in the Tele-Series called "Indian Idol"
telecasted on Sony Entertainment Television channel on 25.09.1997,
it came to the appellant's knowledge through media reports that
sentiments of a certain section of the public in West Bengal were
purportedly hurt given to misinterpretation of the above-said discussion
on the said show in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances
narrated it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled for the grant of
anticipatory BAIL the appellant can be interrogated by the
Investigating Officer without taking him in custody.

2008)
Anwar Ali Appellant Vs. State of Chhatisgarh Respondent,
petition under by the impugned order, the High Court rejected the
application of the appellant for grant of BAIL filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No. 327/2007 registered in
Police Station, Durg, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,
468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code it is a fit
case where the appellant deserves to be released on BAIL

2001 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 1179 and 754 of 2001)
Arjun Mahto Appellant Vs. State of Bihar Respondent, decided
on 8/13/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Dr.
Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
three appeals have a common matrix and judgment of a Division Bench
of the Patna High Court. By the impugned judgment, the State's appeal
was dismissed while in he case of present appellants their conviction
was altered from Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section
395 IPC. The sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life was altered to
seven years rigorous imprisonment it is a serious case of dacoity, any
leniency in sentence would not only be undesirable but also would be
improper. The passage of time cannot wash away gravity of offence.
Therefore, judged from any angle these appeals have no substance and
are dismissed the accused persons who are on BAIL, shall surrender
to custody forthwith to serve remainder of their sentence.
2008 SCCL.COM 1171(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition

(Criminal) No. 6346 of 2008)
Joginder @ Jindi Appellant/Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana
Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 438 since
the petitioner alleges that the offences charged are BAILable offences,
the High Court was not justified in holding that custodial interrogation
was necessary. Section 438 Cr.P.C. in terms relates to non-bailable
offences. Therefore, a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to
BAILable offences is mis-conceived if the petitioner surrenders and
seeks regular BAIL, the same shall be considered uninfluenced by any
observations made by the High Court.

2001)
State of U.P. Appellant Vs. Awdhesh Respondent, decided on
9/9/2008.
Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 396 challenge in
this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent for offence
punishable under Section 396 the respondent was sentenced to
imprisonment for life by the said judgment; but he was acquitted of the
charge relatable to offence punishable under Section 314 IPC doubts
would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract
speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To
constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional
response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt
of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it,
as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an
imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based
upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in
the case forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a
robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the
Judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the
accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed
legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of
criminal justice though the judgment is not happily worded and some
of the reasonings are not legally supportable but the ultimate
conclusion is a possible view. That being so, this Court decline to
interfere in this appeal which is dismissed. The BAIL bond executed in

the present case by the respondent shall stand discharged.

2004 With Crl. A. Nos. 100, 99, 98, 629, of 2004 and 785 of 2005.)
Viswanathan Appellant Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police,
T.N. Respondent, decided on 4/29/2008.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 376 (2) (g)
conviction under appellant sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years Explanation-I one appended to the said
provision clearly states that the persons who have common intention to
commit the said offence would also be liable in terms of Section 376(2)
(g) of the Act. The common intention of all the accused need not be
supported by the fact that each one of them took part in actual
commission of the offence. The very fact that they came on cycles and
dashed with the cycle of PW7 would clearly show that they had a
common intention to commit the offence. If they had the common
intention of committing the offence, they although were charged under
Section 376 in general, they could be convicted also under Section
376(2)(g) as the latter is merely a graver form of the offence of rape as
defined in Section 375 of the Code the appeals preferred by accused
Nos.1, 2 and 3 are dismissed whereas the appeals preferred by accused
Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are allowed. They are on BAIL. Whereas accused Nos.1,
2 and 3 are directed to surrender, accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 are
discharged from their BAIL bonds.

2001)
Murugan and another Appellants Vs. State Rep. by Public
Prosecutor Madras, Tamil Nadu and another Respondents,
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 307 and 307 read
with section 109 challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court setting aside the
judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Principal, Assistant Sessions
Judge, Tirunelveli. The appellant faced trial along with one Velliah for
alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 307 and 307
read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 though the trial
Court found that the prosecution has not established the case, in appeal
filed by the State it was held by the High Court that the prosecution
established the accusations against the appellants. But the acquittal so
far as the Velliah A3 is concerned, the High Court confirmed the
acquittal a person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be

convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a
higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree
of probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise particular to each case
the concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously
be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to
how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the
degrees of probability and the quantum of proof when the factual
position is analysed in the background of the conclusions arrived at by
the High Court, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court's
judgment is correct. The appeal is dismissed. The appellants who are
directed to be released on BAIL by order dated 10.12.2001, shall
surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.

2008)
Sunil Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided
on 10/16/2008.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 conviction under various
offences several accused sentenced to undergo custodial
imprisonment and fine with default stipulation the High Court
dismissed the appeal so far as the present appellant is concerned, this
Court is not concerned with the other appeals the prosecution has
failed to establish the accusations so far as the present appellant is
concerned. He is acquitted of the charges and his conviction is set
aside. The BAIL bonds executed by him for giving effect to the order of
BAIL passed by this Court's order dated 25.1.2008 shall stand
discharged.

2008)
Lokesh Singh Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302 and 120B
the accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Single
Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench granting BAIL to the
respondent No.2 who is an accused the High Court was not justified
in granting BAIL to respondent No.2. The order granting BAIL is set
aside. The respondent No.2 who was released on BAIL shall surrender
to custody forthwith.

2001)
Arumugam Appellant Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, T.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Justice
Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302 read with
section 34 conviction by the trial court upheld by the Madras High
Court so far accused A1 is concerned, and the co-accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirunvelveli, has held the appellant
and the co-accused guilty another person Subbiah-A3 was charged
for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. A3 did not
prefer appeal before the High Court and A2 has also not filed any
appeal before this Court the appropriate conviction would be under
Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. Custodial sentence of
10 years would meet the ends of justice. Appellant who is on BAIL
pursuant to the order dated 21.1.2001 shall surrender to custody
forthwith to serve remainder of sentence, if any where the offender
takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the
benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used or
the manner of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion, that
circumstance must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue
advantage has been taken.

2001)
Arumugam Appellant Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, T.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Justice
Mukundakam Sharma.
section 34 conviction by the trial court upheld by the Madras High
Court so far accused A1 is concerned, and the co-accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirunvelveli, has held the appellant
and the co-accused guilty another person Subbiah-A3 was charged
for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. A3 did not
prefer appeal before the High Court and A2 has also not filed any
appeal before this Court the appropriate conviction would be under
Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. Custodial sentence of
10 years would meet the ends of justice. Appellant who is on BAIL
pursuant to the order dated 21.1.2001 shall surrender to custody
forthwith to serve remainder of sentence, if any where the offender

takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the
benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used or
the manner of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion, that
circumstance must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue
advantage has been taken.

2006)
Munna @ Pooran Yadav Appellant(s) Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh Respondent(s), decided on 11/4/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302 conviction
under appellant herein challenges his conviction for an offence under
Section 302 for having committed murder of one Chhota S/o Gariba.
Initially three accused persons were tried for the offence under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC as also under Section 302 simpliciter in
addition to the above charge under Section 302, Munna was also tried
for an offence under Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act. 1st
Additional Sessions Judge Chhattarpur, M.P. convicted the appellant
under Section 302 Simpliciter and sentenced him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for life while acquitting him from the charges under
Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act whereas the other two co-accused were
convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC no
merit in the present appeal and it is dismissed the appellant was
released on BAIL during the pendency of his appeal. The State shall
take immediate steps to arrest him by issuing Non-bailable warrants
against him and arrest him for undergoing the rest of the sentence.

2002)
Govardhan Dass Bansal Appellant Vs. State (Delhi
Administration) Th. Secretary Respondent, decided on
10/22/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta.
Subject Index: A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
sections 7 and 16 prosecution under chilly powder sample taken
sent to the public analyst and it was found that percentage of Ash
insoluble in dilute HCL was at 4.2% as against the permissible limit of
1.35%. The trial court found the appellant guilty. In appeal, the
conclusion of the trial court was upheld. A criminal revision was filed
before the High Court which was admitted. But on the day the appeal
was admitted, the revision petition was disposed of by a cryptic and
practically non-reasoned order. That is not the way to dispose of a
revision petition which has been admitted. If there was no substance, it

should not have been admitted. Since it was admitted, the Court
obviously felt that there was some arguable point. Thereafter dismissed
it without indicating any reason or basis is certainly not the proper way
of disposal impugned order of the High Court set aside and the
matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with
law. B) Interim Protection the appellant is continuing on BAIL
pursuant to the order passed by this Court. The same shall continue till
the disposal of the revision by the High Court by granting this interim
protection, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the case. C) Revision Petition disposal by a cryptic and practically
non-reasoned order.

2008)
Sami Ullaha Appellant Vs. Superintendent, Narcotic Central
Bureau Respondent, decided on 11/7/2008.
Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 BAIL cancellation of whether
an order of BAIL granted in favour of the appellant herein could have
been directed to be cancelled on the basis of a report of analysis of the
articles recovered from him containing `heroin' is the core question
involved herein the miniscule percentage of heroin which has been
found, i.e., 2.6%, would not come within the purview of commercial
quantity the general principles of grant of BAIL are not applicable in a
case involving the Act. The power of the court in that behalf is limited.
Section 37 of the Act whether the contraband found came within the
purview of the commercial quantity within the meaning of Section
2(viia) or not is one of the factors which should be taken into
consideration by the courts in the matter of grant or refusal to grant
BAIL. Even, according to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New
Delhi, only 2.6% of the sample sent was found to be containing heroin
the quantity, thus, alleged to have been recovered from the coaccused persons could be said to be intermediate quantity and, thus,
the rigours of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act relating to grant of
BAIL may not be justified the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained which is set aside accordingly. The order dated 15.03.2005
cancelling the BAIL is set aside and the revision application filed in the
High Court stands allowed. The appeal is allowed.

2008)
Ratan Kumar Vishwas Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr. Justice C.K.
Thakker and Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.

Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 sections 27A and 29 conviction
under appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
14 years and to pay a fine of rupees two lacs with default stipulation.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Kanpur
Nagar has found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him
challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed by the
appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL. Appellant-Ratan
Kumar Vishwas has filed an Appeal No. 6636 of 2006 questioning his
conviction the offence punishable under Sections 27A and 29 the
High Court has dealt with the factual position in great detail to conclude
that the parameters of Section 37 are not fulfilled to warrant grant of
BAIL by suspension of sentence. This Court finds no reason to interfere
in the matter the appellant is ailing and needs treatment. It is open
to him to move the appropriate authorities for providing such medical
treatment as is needed.

2008)
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Appellant(s) Vs. M/s. Bajaj
Electricals Ltd. Respondent(s), decided on 7/6/2008.
Subject Index: Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 section 78(5)
appeal by the Department against the judgment and order passed by
the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.114 of
2005 setting aside the penalty under on March 30, 1999 a truck
coming from Delhi was intercepted. The name of the consignor in was
M/s. Navyug Appliances (India), Mayapuri, Delhi. When the vehicle was
stopped for checking at the check-post the driver was directed to
produce bills, bilties, Declaration Form ST 18A for goods loaded in the
vehicle. The statement of the driver was recorded. Show cause notice
was issued. In reply to the show cause notice the representative of the
respondent (importer) submitted that the duty for filling in the
Declaration Form ST 18A was the responsibility of the transporter and
the consignor and on account of mistake on the part of the transporter
the said Form was not duly filled in. The A.O. came to the conclusion
that goods were imported without the Declaration Form ST 18A which
amounted to violation of Section 78(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax
Act, 1994 read with Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995.
Hence, on the price of the goods of Rs.2,85,000/-, penalty at the rate of
30% to the tune of Rs.85,500/- came to be imposed the details
required were never supplied. Hence penalty was correctly levied under
Section 78 (5) of the 1994 Act.

2001)
N.R. Mon Appellant Vs. Md. Nasimuddin Respondent, decided on
5/16/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and P.
Sathasivam.
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 section 37 BAIL under
recovery of 123 kgs. of Ganja challenge in this appeal is to the
judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal
Bench, upholding the order passed by the Learned Special Judge, NDPS,
Manipur, Imphal, in Crl. Complaint case No. 32 of 2000, by which BAIL
was granted to the respondent the High Court seems to have
completely overlooked underlying object of Section 37 since the Trial
Court and the High Court have not kept these aspects in view, the order
granting BAIL is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The appeal is
allowed.

2008)
Gulam Mohd. @ Gulal Shaikh Appellant Vs. State of Gujarat
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 120-B, 121A, 122,
123 and sections 3(1)(A)(B), 3(3) 4, 20, 21(2)B, 22(3)(B), of POTA and
sections 25(1)B, C, 27 and 29 of Arms Act, 1950 trial under an
application in terms of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and Section 49 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 was filed
this Court has categorically held that the confession, if any, under
Section 32 of POTA made by the co-accused is not admissible. It was
submitted that there was retraction from the confession and, therefore,
there was no material before the trial Court to reject the prayer for BAIL
the role of the accused is clearly established. His link with the
absconding accused Rasul and Mufti Sufian is clearly established. There
was recovery of country made revolver and live cartridges. It was
pointed out that it was not only the statement recorded under Section
32 of POTA but other factors like recovery, and antecedents were also
taken into consideration it would be proper for the trial Court to
conclude the trial as early as possible.

2008)
Mahmood Rajasa Saiyed Appellant Vs. State of Gujarat
Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 section 34

appeal under challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed
under Section 34 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 the High Court
held that it is a fit case for grant of BAIL. Though, there was allegation
of illegal custody no material was placed in that regard. In view of the
reasons recorded by the High Court and the trial Court for rejecting the
BAIL application, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the appeal.

2008)
Md. Shakeel Appellant(s) Vs. State Police Tr.P.S. Hanmakonda
and another Respondent(s), decided on 11/6/2008.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 sections 397 read
with section 401 challenge in the appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the
application filed by the appellant in terms of section 397 read with
Section 401 the appellant who was accused No. 1 was convicted for
offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegation
against the appellant was that he and two others were responsible for
the suicide of Farzana who was the wife of the appellant the High
Court has referred to the factual scenario for a major part of the
judgment. It, however, came to an abrupt conclusion that the revision
was without any merit the relevance of the dying declaration and its
effect on the prosecution case has not been considered by the High
Court at all this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question
as to whether the appellant is entitled to BAIL or not. Needless to say
all relevant aspects shall be considered if an application for BAIL is filed
the High Court to take up the revision petition at an early date and
make an effort to dispose of the same as early as practicable preferably
within six months from the date of receipt of order.

2007 with Crl.A. Nos. 484, 705 & 582 of 2007)
Mohmed Amin @ Amin C.R.M. Shaikh and another Appellants Vs.
C.B.I. through its Director Respondent, decided on 11/18/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice G.S. Singhvi.
Subject Index: Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 appeals under by appellant Nos. A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10
and A-11 respectively) are directed against judgment dated 6.2.2007 of
the Designated Judge (TADA), Ahmedabad whereby they were
acquitted of charges under Section 3 and 5 of The Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 but were held guilty of

different offences under the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life
imprisonment. Appellant Nos.A-5 and A-8 were also convicted under
Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to three years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. They were
also convicted under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act the
appellants are guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section
120B IPC and no independent corroboration is required for sustaining
their conviction the prosecution has produced sufficient corroborative
evidence and the trial Court did not commit any error in relying upon
the same to support its conclusion that the appellants are guilty of
offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and other
offences learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any
serious infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses by
the trial Court the trial Court did not commit any error in recording a
finding that charges of conspiracy and murder are proved against the
appellants. Consequently, the appeals fail and are dismissed.

2008)
Manoj Ramesh Mehta Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V.
Raveendran and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 120B, 255, 34
109 read with Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999
sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(5) FIR under application for BAIL rejected
challenged it is not possible for this Court to accept the claim that
the involvement of appellant was only peripheral. The High Court on
examination of the material was satisfied that a prima facie case has
been made out under section 3(2) of MCOC Act. The material prima
facie shows that though he was not directly connected with the printing
and selling of the fake stamps, he was associated with A.K.L.Telgi and
had abetted and facilitated the commission of the organized crime, and
he had also aided and assisted in the money-laundering operations and
attempted to interfere with the witnesses on behalf of A.K.L. Telgi and
his family members the High Court has considered the matter in
detail and has rightly concluded that this is not a fit case for granting
BAIL.

2008)
Bhuvaneshwar Yadav Appellant Vs. State of Bihar and others

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302 and 27 of the
Arms Act, 1959 conviction under of respondents 2 and 3
granting of BAIL to them challenged in appeal according to the
appellant, the impugned order of the High Court shows a total nonapplication of mind. No reason has been indicated as to why the prayer
for BAIL was accepted after same was rejected on two earlier occasions,
when there was no change in circumstances the High Court noticed
that earlier the BAIL was rejected, but liberty was granted to renew the
prayer after six months. That does not in any way show that there was
entitlement for granting the BAIL. The impugned order of the High
Court shows total non-application of mind and is therefore set aside.
The appeal is allowed. The BAIL application shall be reconsidered on
merits and shall be disposed of by a reasoned order.

2008 with T.P. (Crl.) No. 199 of 2008)
M/s. Eicher Tractor Ltd. and others Appellants Vs. Harihar Singh
and another Respondents, decided on 11/7/2008.
petition under dismissal by the High Court challenged in this
appeal the appellants had prayed for quashing the proceedings by
the said petition appellants had prayed for quashing the proceedings
initiated on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.1 and the
order of learned Civil Judge taking cognizance of offences punishable
under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
issuance of summons to the appellants. The learned magistrate
recorded statements of the complainant under Section 200 of Code as
well as of the witness under Section 202 of the Code and thereafter
issued summons to the appellants to start proceedings. The appellants
took the stand that the proceedings were nothing but an abuse of the
process of Court. It was pointed out that the summons issued were
never served and BAILable warrant of arrest and subsequently nonbailable warrant has been issued the High Court accepted that
without service of summons the issuance of BAILable as well as nonbailable warrant was uncalled for. It was also directed that the
proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the Code was to be stayed
and on the appellants appearing before the concerned court the
proceedings shall continue exercise of power under Section 482 of
the Code in a case of this nature is an exception and not the rule. The
section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only
saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the
enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which
the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised the powers possessed by
the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the
very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise the
allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence

and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings the
proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated
by the appellants. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but
an abuse of the process of law.
2008 SCCL.COM 1599(Case/Appeal No: Crl. M.P. No. 5643 of 2007

with Crl. M.P. No.4506/2007 @ Crl. A. No.1113/2005, 5639 -5642,
5648-49/2007, 5981-5986/2007, 8315/2007, And 15724-15725/2008
In Crl. A. Nos.1651-1652/2008)
Anusuyaben Sadashiv Jadav and another Petitioners Vs. Union
of India and others Respondents, decided on 12/1/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V.
Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004
applications for BAIL and impleadment some rejected by special
judge, some by High Court and some other applications by Supreme
Court POTA repealed in 2004 through an Act certain provisions of
this 2004 Act were challenged Supreme Court upheld the validity of
section 2(3) and (5) of the Repealed Act also upheld the deemed
withdrawal of cases under POTA hence, BAIL applications filed by the
accused have to be considered afresh accused also been charged
under several non-POTA offences to be tried by regular sessions
judges POTA Special Judge, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad and such other
Courts where cases of applicants are pending, are directed to send all
those cases to the respective sessions judge within one month in the
instant case, petitioners are under-trial prisoners since April 2003
Held: Respective Sessions Judge to consider this fact and dispose of the
matters.

2008)
Nagaraja Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided
on 12/18/2008.
Subject Index: IPC section 302 read with 34 Trial Judge convicted
all the three accused for offence punishable under section 302 read with
section 34 that due to previous ill-will in furtherance of their common
intention, they had caused death of the deceased appealed High
Court dismissed the appeal appealed Supreme Court issued a
limited notice in respect of present appellant Held: past enmity may
not be a ground for inference of common intention amongst parties
appellant cannot be held guilty appellant might be guilty for offence
under sec. 323 of IPC and not for offence under sec. 302 read with sec.
34 he is sentenced to the period already undergone appeal
allowed as appellant is on BAIL, BAIL bonds shall stand discharged.

2008)
Brij Nandan Jaiswal Appellant/Petitioner Vs. Munna @ Munna
Jaiswal and another Respondents, decided on 12/19/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: IPC 302, 504 and 506 accused allegedly beat up
complainant's son, who died due to hemorrhage and resultant shock
accused taken in custody BAIL application rejected by Sessions Judge
appealed High Court concluded that the accused was entitled to be
released on BAIL respondent released aggrieved, complainant filed
special leave petition Held : it is not as if once a BAIL is granted by
any Court, the only way is to get it cancelled on account of its misuse
BAIL order can be tested on merits also no reasons given by the High
Court Judge while granting BAIL Held : in serious cases like murder,
some reasons justifying the grant of BAIL are necessary High Court
order set aside and High Court directed to decided the BAIL application
again accused shall immediately surrender if he does not
surrender , a non-bailable warrant be issued appeal allowed to this
limited extent.

2008)
Vaman Narain Ghiya Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan
Subject Index: IPC, section 413, 417, 380 and 411 Cr.P.C. sections
437(6), 438 and 439 allegation of smuggling of antiques against
appellant two of his BAIL applications rejected by Rajasthan High
Court appealed appellant argued that evidence of the prosecution
witnesses was not sufficient to secure his conviction in any of the
charges Held: while considering an application for BAIL, detailed
discussion of merits be avoided and existence of a prima facie case is
only to be considered no merit in the appeal dismissed.

2008)
Ravishwar Manjhi and others Appellants Vs. State of Jharkhand
Subject Index: IPC sections 302/149, 307/149, 326/147/148/324 and

326 complainant's father beaten to death by six accused trial
Court convicted all the six accused and awarded different quantum of
sentences High Court dismissed the appeal by appellants appealed
Held : Sessions Judge and High Court appeared to have proceeded
on the premise that as the appellants were not able to prove their
defence, the prosecution version should be accepted. This approach of
the Courts was not correct investigation was carried out in a slipshod
manner Held: it is possible for the Court to arrive at conclusion that
the appellants were entitled to exercise their right of private defence
appeal allowed three of the accused in custody, are directed to be set
at liberty BAIL bonds of two other accused shall stand discharged.

2002)
Neku Khan and others Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan
Justice Mukandakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, sections 376, 147, 323/149 342,
458 and 366 conviction of appellant no.1 upheld by High Court the
other appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section
147, 323/149, 342, 458 and 366 IPC there was no evidence of the
marriage as claimed. The evidence of Bhouware Khan (DW 2) on which
strong reliance was placed to contend that there was a marriage, it did
not in fact substantiate the claim there was no other material
adduced to say that the accused no.1 and the prosecutrix were married.
That being so the conviction of appellant No.1 as recorded by the trial
court and maintained by the High Court cannot be faulted so far as
the role played by appellant No. 2 is concerned the same was clearly
established by the evidence of injured witnesses PW 2 and PW 4, apart
from the evidence of the PW 5. That being so the appeal fails so far as
they are concerned it is rightly contended by learned counsel for the
appellants, that there is practically no evidence to link with the other
appellants i.e. Ali Sher, Bakhsu Khan and Barkat Khan with the crime.
Their conviction is set aside. The BAIL bonds executed by them shall
stand discharged. The appellants 1 & 2 Neku Khan and Same Khan shall
surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence.

2009)
Suzanne Lousie Martin Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan and
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble
Subject Index: Bail granting of and suspension of sentence
appeal the appellant is a British journalist and business woman. She

had come to India and was staying in Pardeshi Guest House, Udaipur.
On 23/24.12.2007, the respondent No.2, who was running the guest
house, barged into the room where the appellant was staying and
forcibly raped her. She has alleged that because of this incident she was
emotionally, mentally and physically wrecked and became totally
uncapicitated to even think and act like a normal human being
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute and
culpability of the accused, this Court is certainly of the opinion that this
was not a fit case where the sentence awarded should have been
suspended and the accused released on BAIL. The High Court was,
thus, totally unjustified in granting BAIL to the accused, or in
suspending the sentence.

2009)
Khilari Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and others Respondents,
Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Bail allowed by DB of Allahabad Court challenged
in this appeal respondent nos. 2 and 3 were convicted for offences
punishable under Section 302 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 the only stand taken before the High Court was that the
ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased included three
contusions, one abraded contusion and four lacerated wounds of
different dimensions on various parts of the body which could not have
been caused by iron rods the extracted portion of the High Court's
order goes to show there was complete non-application of mind and
non-consideration of the relevant aspects. The order relating to grant of
BAIL in respect of co-accused by order dated 15.11.2006 was the
subject matter of challenge in Pancham Chand & Ors. v. State of
Himahal Pradesh & Ors. (2008 (3) SCALE 379) and the order was set
aside the impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable and is set
aside. The BAIL granted to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is cancelled.
The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in
accordance with law.

2009)
Union of India Appellant Vs. Rattan Mallik @ Habul Respondent,
Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 sections 8/27A and 8/29
challenge in this appeal by the Union of India is to the order passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad suspending the sentence

awarded by the trial Court to the respondent for having committed
offences under Sections 8/27A and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and granting him BAIL whether
the High Court, while accepting the prayer for grant of BAIL, had kept in
view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act the impugned
order having been passed ignoring the mandatory requirements of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for
fresh consideration of the application filed by the respondent for
suspension of sentence and for granting of BAIL, keeping in view the
parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2009)
Ashok Kumar Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another
Subject Index: Bail granted by Allahabad High Court appeal
respondent No.2 faced trial in Crime No.96 of 2006 for alleged
commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
307, 302, 504 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 earlier the BAIL application filed was rejected by the High
Court on 16.11.2006. In support of the second BAIL application it was
submitted that pellets were found on the body of the deceased by the
doctor and such pellets and the licensed rifle were sent to the ballistic
expert. From the report received it is revealed that such pellets could
not have been used by the licensed rifle of the accused. The ballistic
report completely falsified the prosecution case. The High Court
accepted the prayer for BAIL since the accused is on BAIL for
considerable length of time, it is not appropriate to cancel the BAIL,
though there appears to be some substance in the plea that the
impugned order granting BAIL suffers from various infirmities. Let the
trial be completed within three months. If the complainant or any
witness seeks protection for appearance before the Court during trial,
the same shall be provided by the concerned police officials. The trial
Court would take up the matter on continuous basis to complete the
trial within the period indicated above.

2009)
Masood Ali Khan Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and others
Subject Index: Bail granted by Division Bench of the Allahabad High

Court during the pendency of criminal appeal each of the
respondents 2 to 4 and co-accused Chhote was awarded life sentence.
An appeal was filed before the High Court. The respondents filed an
application for release on BAIL. By the impugned order BAIL has been
granted the High Court has not referred to any circumstance which
warrants grant of BAIL section 389 of the Code empowers the Court
to suspend the sentence pending the appeal and for release of the
appellant on BAIL section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of
execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant
on BAIL. There is a distinction between BAIL and suspension of
sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the
requirement for the appellate Court to record reasons in writing for
ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed
against. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be
released on BAIL, or on his own bond the mere fact that during the
trial, they were granted BAIL and there was no allegation of misuse of
liberty, is really not of much significance. The effect of BAIL granted
during trial looses significance when on completion of trial, the accused
persons have been found guilty the order of the High Court is clearly
indefensible and is set aside. Respondents 2 to 4 shall surrender to
custody forthwith.

2009)
Angana and another Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan
Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
323, 452 and 307 charge under the High Court while admitting the
appeal has rejected the application seeking BAIL/suspension of
sentence filed by the appellant appeal taking into consideration
over all view of the matter and in particular offence alleged and
sentence imposed and further taking into consideration the acquittal of
other accused persons, who were also charge sheeted in the same
offences as that of the appellants and further taking into consideration
the conduct of the appellants during the trial before the Sessions Court
when they were on BAIL, the High Court could have suspended the
sentence and granted BAIL to the appellants. Therefore, this Court
would be justified under Article 136 of the Constitution in interfering
with the discretion exercised by the High Court sentence suspended.

2009)
Anil Ari Appellant Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent, decided
on 2/9/2009.
application for suspension of sentence under rejected by the DB of
Calcutta High Court challenged in this appeal four persons who are
the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2008 were convicted by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Second
Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur for offences punishable under Sections
342, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
law was set into motion on 9.7.1994 by one Shamburam Maity,
alleging that 17 accused persons and many unknown persons on
8.7.1994 at about 11.00 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention
had murdered the complainant's brother Shibram Maity and had
concealed the dead body in the house of one Sasanka Maity. The police
undertook investigation and after completion of investigation charge
sheet was filed against 19 persons. Charge was framed on 5.11.2005
and the accused persons faced trial as they pleaded innocence
charges were framed against 16 persons as two of the accused persons
had expired before the commencement of the trial. The trial Court on
consideration of the evidence came to hold that appellants before the
High Court were guilty as afore-noted the appellate Court is duty
bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the
conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence
and grant of BAIL the mere fact that during the trial, they were
granted BAIL and there was no allegation of misuse of liberty, is really
not of much significance on the peculiar facts of the case considering
the age of the accused appellant Anil Ari, this Court directs that he shall
be released on BAIL on furnishing security.

2009)
State of Maharashtra Etc. Appellant Vs. Dhanendra Shriram
Bhurle Etc. Respondent, decided on 2/11/2009.
Subject Index: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 sections
10, 13, 18 and 29, Arms Act, 1959 section 3 and 4 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 sections 34 and 120B trial under challenge in these
appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay
High Court, Nagpur Bench, granting BAIL to the respondents since
the High Court had not kept the relevant parameters in view, while
granting BAIL, the impugned order is set aside the trial court to
complete the trial as early as practicable preferably within six months
from the date of receipt of this court's order.

2009)
Dhuk Singh Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan and another
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 169 scope
and ambit of challenge in this appeal is to the grant of BAIL to
respondent No. 2 who had applied for BAIL during the pendency of the
proceedings a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at
Jodhpur allowed the BAIL application. The High Court stated that the
question as to whether respondent No. 2 was to be added as an
accused is the subject matter of examination by the High Court, while
considering the scope and ambit of Section 169 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code'). The High Court did not examine the
case on merits and on that score alone accepted the prayer for BAIL. It
needs to be noted that learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, had rejected the
BAIL application on considering the nature of allegations against the
present respondent No. 2 the BAIL application has to consider among
other circumstances the following: "(i) the nature of accusations and
the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii)
prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge" the
impugned order of the High Court set aside and the matter remitted for
fresh consideration.

2009)
Rasiklal Appellant Vs. Kisore Respondent, decided on
2/20/2009.
appellant is accused for commission of offences and assails the order
by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
Indore, in Criminal Revision No. 1362 of 2006 by which BAIL granted to
the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, M.P.
on December 1, 2006 is cancelled on the ground that the order granting
BAIL was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore,
without hearing the original complainant and was, therefore, bad for
violation of principles of natural justice having regard to the facts of
the case this Court is of the firm opinion that the BAIL granted to the
appellant for alleged commission of BAILable offence could not have
been cancelled by the High Court on the ground that the complainant
was not heard and, thus, principles of natural justice were violated.
Principles of natural justice is not a 'mantra' to be applied in vacuum in
all cases the order dated March 24, 2008, passed by the learned
Single Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in

Criminal Revision No. 1362 of 2006 cancelling the BAIL granted to the
appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate is hereby set aside and
order dated December 1, 2006, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Indore, M.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 1604 of
2005 is hereby restored.

2009)
Sneh Gupta Appellant Vs. Devi Sarup and others Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Dr.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure order XXIII Rule
interpretation of.

2001)
Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 498A, 306 and
109 conviction under the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
Beed convicted the appellant under section 498A IPC to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- original
accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd
Additional Sessions Judge, Beed the learned Judge of the High Court
correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct
conclusion. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any
merit is accordingly dismissed the BAIL bond of the appellant are
cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out
the remaining sentence.

2001)
Milind Bhagwanrao Godse Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 498A, 306 and
109 conviction under the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
Beed convicted the appellant under section 498A IPC to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- original
accused nos. 2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd

Additional Sessions Judge, Beed the learned Judge of the High Court
correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct
conclusion. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any
merit is accordingly dismissed the BAIL bond of the appellant are
cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out
the remaining sentence.

2009)
Munish Bhasin and others Appellants Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T.
of Delhi) and another Respondents, decided on 2/20/2009.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 498A and 406 read
with section 34 complaint filed by wife for alleged commission of
offences under against him and against his parents High Court
imposed the condition of payment of Rs. 12,500/- as maintenance for
release on BAIL assailed the direction contained in order dated
August 07, 2007 rendered by Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court
in BAIL Application No. 423 of 2007 requiring the appellant to pay a
sum of Rs. 12,500/- per month by way of maintenance (both past and
future) to his wife and child is hereby deleted. Rest of the directions
contained in the said order are maintained.

2009)
Amin Khan Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan and others
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 396 and Arms Act,
1959 six persons faced trial the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar,
acquitted the accused persons of all the charges on 26.5.2006 the
High Court granted leave and summoned the respondents through
BAILable warrants. On 14.8.2006 the State filed an application in terms
of Section 390 read with Section 482 of Code for revoking the earlier
order and to commit the accused persons to prison after summoning
them through non BAILable warrants the High Court has found that
prima facie the evidence regarding identification made in court and DNA
test has not been considered in the proper perspective by the trial
Court. It was noted that the DNA report of the hair allegedly seized
from the hands of the deceased prima facie established that it was of
the accused Mubin and Amin who remained throughout the trial in
custody. That being so, this Court does not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgment to warrant interference.

2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2008 and 453 of 2009 @ Criminal
Appeal D. No. 23837 of 2008)
Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh and another Appellants Vs.
State of Gujarat Respondent, decided on 3/6/2009.
Subject Index: Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 questions of law regarding grant of BAIL all these three
appeals have been filed under Section 19 of TADA relating to separate
incidents which are alleged to have occurred in Porbandar and Valsad in
the State of Gujarat.

2009)
Ramathal and others Appellants Vs. Inspector of Police and
application under allowed by High Court the appellants are
aggrieved due to imposition of alleged onerous condition for grant of
anticipatory BAIL the present appeal is filed by the appellants being
aggrieved by a part of the direction contained in the Order dated
21.07.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court impugned order set aside the High Court shall
dispose of the matter in accordance with law, giving reasons for its
decision.

2009)
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and
others Respondent(s), decided on 3/23/2009.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409
and 218 FIR writ filed for quashing the FIR by the impugned
Judgment, the High Court refused to quash the F.I.R. but directed that if
the appellant surrenders within 10 days, his BAIL application will be
considered and disposed of expeditiously this is not a fit case for
quashing the first information report.

2009)
Mahesh Choudhary Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan and another
Subject Index: Constitution of India Article 142 exercise of
jurisdiction under appellant was a partner of a firm known as M/s
Saraswati Exports. He is also Director of a Company known as
`Saraswati Exim Pvt. Ltd.' the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences against the appellant by an order dated
9.1.2007. Appellant thereafter filed an application for quashing of the
said order before the Rajasthan High Court which has been dismissed
by reason of the impugned judgment the question as to whether the
complainant was entitled to a higher amount of commission in terms of
the agreement dated 21.2.1973 is essentially a civil dispute. The
complainant in terms of the said agreement was not only entitled to
inspect the documents maintained by the accused but also to get the
same audited. It is, therefore, difficult to hold as has rightly been
opined by the Investigating Officer that a case for imposing a criminal
liability on the accused on that score has been made out the chargesheet, prima facie discloses commission of offences. A fair investigation
was carried out by the Investigating Officer. The charge-sheet is a
detailed one. If an order of cognizance has been passed relying on or on
the basis thereof by the learned Magistrate, no exception thereto can be
taken this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned
orders the appellant is ready and willing to get the disputes and
differences between the parties settled. In that view of the matter and
keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and
with a view to do complete justice to the parties, this Court, in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, direct that
in the event the appellant appears before the learned Magistrate within
a period of four weeks from date and files an application for grant of
BAIL, he shall be released on BAIL on such terms and conditions as the
learned Magistrate may seem fit and proper.

2001)
Satish Kumar Batra and others Appellants/Petitioners Vs. State
of Haryana Respondent, decided on 4/1/2009.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 498A conviction
under confirmed by additional sessions Judge revision petition
dismissed by High Court challenged in this appeal six persons
were arrayed as accused persons on the basis of information lodged by
Santosh Kumari nothing infirm in the judgment of the High Court in
upholding the conviction of accused appellant Satish Kumar. The
sentence imposed was two years. It is on record that he has undergone

sentence of more than 13 months. He has been released on BAIL
pursuant to order dated 9.7.2001. Therefore, while upholding the
conviction, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. So far
as the appellant nos.2 & 3 i.e. Sunil Kumar and Satya Devi are
concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish the
accusations so far as they are concerned.

2003)
State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Vs. Naresh Kumar @ Kaka
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302 read with
section 34 and 323 read with section 34 conviction under
challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the
Himachal Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondents who
faced trial of alleged commission of offences punishable under Section
302 the High Court to explore the possibility of disposing of the
appeal as early as practicable and preferably by the end of September
2009 after the acquittal when this Court granted leave, the
respondents were not in custody and BAILable warrants were issued.
They will continue to be so till the disposal of the matter afresh by the
High Court.

2009)
Ram Babu Tiwari Appellant Vs. State of M.P. and another
section 34 arrested under prayed for BAIL under section 439,
Cr.P.C. an application for cancellation for BAIL was filed by the
present respondent no.2 prosecution version is that in the wake of a
property dispute present appellant had hired with the assistance of one
Deepak Harnath Singh, respondent nos. 2 and 3 for killing Shyam
Tiwari who is his real brother the High Court cancelled the BAIL
granted. It was noted that since the other co-accused have not opposed
the prayer for cancellation of BAIL that was also a factor so far as the
appellant is concerned the parameters for grant of BAIL and for
cancellation of BAIL operate in different fields. Therefore, the High
Court on the irrelevant reason that co-accused did not oppose the
prayer should not have cancelled the BAIL granted to the appellant
the High Court shall examine the matter afresh keeping in view the
parameters indicated above.

2009)
Masroor Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondents,
Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 147, 148, 149 and
307 FIR under section 302 was also added challenge in this
appeal by the complainant is to the order dated 10th March, 2008
passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Criminal Miscellaneous BAIL Application No. 4167 of 2008, granting
BAIL to the second respondent, Chhunnu @ Chhidda. The said
respondent was one of the persons named in FIR No.181 of 2007,
registered at Police Station Asmouli, District Moradabad against 22
persons the impugned order granting BAIL to the second respondent
is set aside. The BAIL bond and surety furnished by the said respondent
in terms of the High Court's order stand cancelled and it is directed that
he shall be taken into custody forthwith.

2002)
Velayuda Pulavar Appellant(s) Vs. State of Sub-Inspector of
Police Respondent(s), decided on 4/16/2009.
conviction under upheld by the Madras High Court challenged in
this appeal PW.1's evidence coupled with that of PW.3 makes the
position clear that there was a voluntary extra-judicial confession made
by the appellant before the Village Administrative Officer no scope for
interference in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The
appellant is on BAIL. His BAIL bonds shall stand cancelled. The
appellant shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of the
sentence.

2002)
Bimla Devi and another Appellant(s) Vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir Respondent(s), decided on 5/5/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and and Hon'ble
Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Ranbir Penal Code sections 306 and 498-A
conviction under upheld by single Judge of the Jammu & Kashmir

High Court while reducing the sentence so far as the offence
relatable to Section 306 is concerned in the present case no useful
purpose would be served in remanding matter since it is more than 20
years old and the appellant has served part of the custodial sentence.
Apart from that in the present case, in the examination under Section
313 of the Code no question was put up relating to demand of dowry
and abetment of suicide. That being so, the appeal deserves to be
allowed the conviction stands set aside. The BAIL bonds executed to
give effect to the order of BAIL dated 9.1.2001 shall stand discharged.

2003 with Crl. M.P. Nos. 10719/2003 in WP (Crl.) No.109/2003,
7078/2003 in WP (Crl.) No.109/2003, 7827/2003, 8193/2003 &
8194/2003 in WP (Crl.) No.109/2003, 11668/2003 in WP (Crl.)
No.109/2003, 11689/2003 in WP (Crl.) No.109/2003, 4782/2003 in WP
(Crl.) No.109/2003, 3741/2004 & 3742/2004 in WP (Crl.) No.109/2003,
6864/2004 in WP (Crl.) No.109/2003, 9236/2005 in WP (Crl.)
No.109/2003, 6767/2006 in WP (Crl.) No.109/2003, 7824/2007 in WP
(Crl.) No.109/2003, W.P. (Crl.) No.D.17953/2003, TP (Crl.) Nos. 194202 and 326-329/2003, SLP (Crl.) No.7951/2002, SLP (Crl.)
No.4409/2003, SLP(Crl.) No.5309/2003, WP(Crl.) No.216/2003,
TP(Crl.) No. 66-72/2004, TP(Crl.) No.43 of 2004, WP(Crl.) No. 118 of
2003, TP(Crl.) Nos. 233-234/2004, WP (Crl.) Nos. 37-52/2002, WP
(Crl.) No.284/2003, Crl.M.P. No.6767/2006 in Crl.M.P.Nos. 37413742/2004 in WP(Crl.)No.109/2003 Crl.M.P. No.4485/2006 in SLP (Crl.)
No.3770/2003)
National Human Rights Commission Petitioner/Appellant Vs.
State of Gujarat and others Respondents, decided on 5/1/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr. Justice P.
Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Constitution of Special Investigation team in the
matter of National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Gujarat
Protection of witnesses since the protection of a witness is a
paramount importance it is imperative that if and when any witness
seeks protection so that he or she can depose freely in court, the same
has to be provided. It is therefore directed that if a person who is
examined as a witness needs protection to ensure his or her safety to
depose freely in a court he or she shall make an application to the SIT
and the SIT shall pass necessary orders in the matter and shall take
into account all the relevant aspects and direct such police
official/officials as it considers proper to provide the protection to the
concerned person in these petitions, which sought various reliefs
including the transfer of some of the ongoing trials, and a
reinvestigation/further investigation into the various incidents on the
basis of which charges had been filed in these trials, this Court, in the
first instance, granted a stay of these ongoing trials the matter was
then heard from time to time and an order was then made on 26th
March 2008 directing the establishment of the SIT, and for a further
investigation into these matters all the directions are to be
considered by SIT by looking into the threat perception if any the SIT
would continue to function and carry out any investigations that are yet
to be completed, or any further investigation that may arise in the
course of the trials. The SIT would also discharge such functions as
have been cast upon them by the present order.

2009)
Subhash Chandra Singh Appellant Vs. Dheemant Singh and
Subject Index: Bail granting of challenge in this appeal is to the
the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court
granting BAIL to the respondent No.1. The appeal is by father of the
Shobhna who was married to the respondent No.1. It is stated that the
death took place within seven years of the marriage and it was
unnatural death. The High Court by a practically non-reasoned order
granted BAIL even a cursory perusal of the High Court's order shows
complete non-application of mind the High Court's order is a bundle
of confusion. On one hand it is noted that there was no dispute that the
death had taken place within seven years of the marriage and that it
was unnatural death. Having said so, it is not understood as to how the
High Court observed that the provisions of Section 113(B) of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 are not applicable and this is not a case punishable
under Section 304 B IPC matter remitted for fresh consideration on
merits.

2002)
Nepal Singh Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided
on 4/24/2009.
Subject Index: ndian Penal Code, 1860 section 304-B and 498-A
conviction under by High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenged in
this appeal there was no evidence towards the claim regarding any
demand of dowry. That being so the High Court ought not to have
interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court directing
acquittal. The reasoning of the High Court that something must have
happened and otherwise deceased would not have committed suicide is
clearly indefensible. That certainly could not have been a reason to set
aside the trial Court's judgment of acquittal the BAIL bonds executed
with effect to the order of BAIL dated 18th May, 2002 and subsequent
date shall stand discharged.

2009)
Bakshish Ram and another Appellants Vs. State of Punjab
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 304B read with
section 498-A sentence under the High Court has confirmed the
judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar
the appellants have also filed separate applications for grant of BAIL
during the pendency of the appeal appellant not entitled to the relief
claimed in the peculiar circumstances of this case and in view of the
fact, that the appellant No. 2 is an old lady of 80 years of age and she
had already been in jail for more than one year, she is entitled for the
relief prayed in the application.

2009)
M.A. Antony @ Antappan Appellant Vs. State of Kerala
302 and 201 conviction under challenge in this appeal is to the
judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upholding the
conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 449,
379, 380, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 appellant was
sentenced to death for the offence relatable to Section 302 IPC, life
imprisonment, 7 years imprisonment, 7 years imprisonment for the
offence relatable to Section 449, 380 and 201 respectively. No separate
sentence was imposed for the offence relatable to Section 379 IPC. For
confirmation of the death sentence reference was made to the High
Court under Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The appellant also preferred an appeal and by the impugned judgment,
both the Death Reference and Criminal Appeal were disposed of the
analysis of the evidence shows that the accused/appellant was in dire
and urgent need of more and he had a motive for getting the said
amount of money there has been full compliance of provisions of
Section 164(2) and the confessional statement made freely and
voluntarily by accused on BAIL cannot be rejected merely because the
Magistrate has used the expression `evidence' instead of `confession'
while warning the accused the appeal is without merit, and deserves
dismissal.

2009)
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and others Appellants Vs. State of
Subject Index: Investigation whether with the change of an
investigating authority, police custody of the accused on remand can be
sought for, although cognizance of the offence had already been taken,
is the question involved herein appellants had been prosecuted for
commission of an offence under Sections
302/307/395/396/397/201/435/ 324/143/147/148/149/153A/341/337/427 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as also under
Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act in this case the Special
Investigating Team has already submitted its report to this Court.
Nothing has been pointed out as to why even the BAIL granted to the
appellants should be cancelled so as to enable this court to consider
that question independently no sufficient or cogent material has been
placed on record by the State or the Special Investigating Team in this
behalf the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set
aside accordingly.

of 2009)
C.B.I., New Delhi Appellant Vs. Abhishek Verma Respondent,
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 120-B read with
sections 3(1)(c) and (5) of the Official Secrets, Act, 1923 FIR under
charge on 18th October, 2006 a complaint under Section 13 of the
OSA was filed and on the next date i.e. 19th October 2006 a
supplementary charge sheet were filed against the respondent. The
CMM took cognizance of the offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the OSA
and under Section 409/109 read with Section 120-B IPC pursuant to
the order of the High Court, the trial court enlarged the respondent on
BAIL on 03.06.2008. The respondent, therefore, is presently on BAIL
and there is no allegation that at any point of time subsequent thereto
he has misused or mis-utilised the liberty granted to him no infirmity
in the judgment and order passed by the High Court.
2009 SCCL.COM 683(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 581 of

2007)
Ram Pat and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Haryana
Respondent(s), decided on 5/12/2009.

Subject Index: Acquittal judgment recorded by Sessions Judge,
Narnaul set aside by the DB of Punjab & Haryana High Court appeal
the right of private defence can be exercised provided any occasion
arises therefor. The learned trial judge wrongly held so, on the premise
that the appellants were in settled possession of the property. If they
were not, they had no right of private defence to defend the possession
of the property. They were, thus, the aggressors being fully armed
there cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that if two views are
possible, the Appellate Court should not interfere with a judgment of
acquittal, but this has many exceptions the appeal is dismissed.
Appellants are on BAIL. Their BAIL bonds shall stand cancelled. Accused
persons are directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining
sentence.
2009 SCCL.COM 689(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7360, 7368,

7372 of 2008)
N. Kannadasan with Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Secretary Appellant(s) Vs. Ajoy Khose and others with Anna
Mathew and others Respondent(s), decided on 5/6/2009.
Subject Index: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 section 16
appointment of the President of the State Commission justiciability of
the recommendations of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court for
appointment of Shri N. Kannadasan (the appellant) as the President of
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in terms of Section
16 of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 is the question involved
herein the appellant was an Advocate practicing in the Madras High
Court. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the said Court for a
period of two years on or about 6th November, 2003. During his tenure
as an Additional Judge a representation was made from the Members of
the Bar alleging lack of probity against him inter alia contending : (A)
(i) several orders had been passed by him granting BAIL in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) matters in contravention of
the mandate laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act despite the
refusal of BAIL on earlier occasions either by him or by other Judges ;
etc.

2009)
Dinesh Kumar Sinha Petitioner/Appellant Vs. State of Jharkhand
through CBI Respondent, decided on 5/15/2009.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 409, 420, 467 468
471 465 and 477A read with section 120(b) as also Prevention of
Corruption Act section 13(2) 13(1)(c)(d) conviction under appeal
the appellant has already undergone nearly two years of his sentence
and also there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High
Court, therefore it is requested that the appellant may be released on
BAIL the applicant/appellant should be released on BAIL.
2009 SCCL.COM 696(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 942,

945, 943-944 of 2009)
S.V.L. Murthy with P.JayaKumar Venugopal Loya and others
Appellants Vs. State Rep. By CBI, Hyderabad State of Andhra
Pradesh Rep. By CBI with State of A.P. Respondents, decided on
5/6/2009.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 120B, 420 , 467,
471 and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act complaint
under on 21.6.1989, a criminal complaint was lodged by the Bank
before the III Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad under Sections
120B, 420, 467, 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act inter alia alleging that cheques issued
to SI were fraudulently discounted and amounts were drawn between
14.2.1989 and 1.5.1989 in the said complaint no allegation was
made against the officers of the Bank. On or about 17.7.1989, the
Metropolitan Magistrate directed the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) to investigate into the case pursuant whereto a First Information
Report was lodged on or about 7.2.1994, learned Special Judge for
CBI Cases, Hyderabad framed charges against the accused persons
under Sections 120B, 420 IPC read with Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. However, Accused Nos. 4 to 6 were additionally
charged with Section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act the
judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be upheld. So far as the
submission of learned Additional Solicitor General that this Court,
having regard to the concurrent findings of fact as regards the
commission of offence arrived at by the learned Special Judge as also
the High Court, should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India is concerned, this court does not
find any substance therein. Appellants have been charged under wrong
provisions. Proper charges have not been framed against them.

2009)
Jayendra Vishnu Thakur Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and

interpretation of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as also section 14(5) of
TADA

of 2009)
C.B.I., New Delhi Appellant Vs. Abhishek Verma Respondent,
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 120-B read with
sections 3(1)(c) and (5) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 FIR under
charge on 18th October, 2006 a complaint under Section 13 of the
OSA was filed and on the next date i.e. 19th October 2006 a
supplementary charge sheet were filed against the respondent. The
CMM took cognizance of the offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the OSA
and under Section 409/109 read with Section 120-B IPC pursuant to
the order of the High Court, the trial court enlarged the respondent on
BAIL on 03.06.2008. The respondent, therefore, is presently on BAIL
and there is no allegation that at any point of time subsequent thereto
he has misused or mis-utilised the liberty granted to him no infirmity
in the judgment and order passed by the High Court.
2009 SCCL.COM 761(Case/Appeal No: S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3529 of

2009)
Sukhwant Singh and others Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab
Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
application under for grant of anticipatory BAIL dismissed
petition filed challenging the judgment in the power to grant BAIL
there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant interim BAIL to
a person pending final disposal of the BAIL application. Of course, it is
in the discretion of the court concerned to grant interim BAIL or not but
the power is certainly there.

Mustaq Ahmed Mohammed Isak and others Appellants Vs. State
of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 5/8/2009.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999
section 12 challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Bombay High Court holding that the order dated 4.9.2006
passed by learned Special Judge in BAIL application No. 32 of 2006 filed
in remand application No. 17 of 2006 suffers from no infirmity the
BAIL application was preferred by the accused Nos. 5 to 8 challenging
the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Special Court thereby granting
second extension of 15 days to complete the investigation and to file
the charge-sheet. The BAIL application came to be rejected stand of
the State before the High Court was that the stand of the appellants
about the scheme of Section 21(2)(b) is misconceived. The High Court
accepted that the order passed by learned Single Judge did not suffer
from any infirmity on 4.9.2006 the charge sheet has been filed and
on that day itself, the application for BAIL was filed by the appellants on
default ground and therefore, the application for BAIL was rejected by
the courts below the impugned judgment of the High Court does not
suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeals fail and
are dismissed accordingly.

2002)
State of M.P. Appellant Vs. Davendra Respondent, decided on
5/5/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat Hon'ble Mr.
Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 sections 4, 5
and 6 provided sufficient guidelines direction was given to the
State about affixing the photographs of the accused persons as well as
the witnesses. There is a likelihood of a grievance being made that the
photographs were shown to the accused before the Test Identification
Parade challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned
Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, which gave
certain directions to the State Government in the matter of
identification of prisoners and methodology for investigation. The
respondent No.1 had filed an application for grant of BAIL in terms of
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even though the
petition had become infructuous certain directions were necessary to be
given to the concerned authorities the directions are subject to
provisions of the Act, the Regulation and the Code. In case of conflict
statute itself prevails. In case of complainant as well as witnesses,
where prosecution wants to protect the identity, the reasons, therefore,
must be recorded. In case of rape victims, photographs should not be
taken.

2009)
Subodh Kumar Yadav Appellant Vs. State of Bihar and another

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 498A BAIL
granted to the appellant cancelled appeal while considering the
factors relevant for consideration of BAIL already granted vis--vis the
factors relevant for rejection of BAIL, this Court pointed out that for
cancellation of BAIL, conduct subsequent to release on BAIL and
supervening circumstances will be relevant. The said observations were
not intended to restrict the power of a superior court to cancel BAIL in
appropriate cases on other grounds. In fact it is now well settled that if
a superior court finds that the court granting BAIL had acted on
irrelevant material or if there was non-application of mind or failure to
take note of any statutory bar to grant BAIL, or if there was manifest
impropriety as for example failure to hear the public
prosecutor/complainant where required, an order for cancellation of
BAIL can in fact be made while cancelling BAIL, the superior Court
would be justified in considering the question whether irrelevant
material were taken into consideration by the court granting BAIL
this Court is of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error
in confirming the order of the Sessions Judge cancelling the BAIL which
was arbitrarily granted to the appellant by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class and, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

Savitri Agarwal and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another Respondent(s), decided on
7/10/2009.
Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 498-A, 304-B read
with section 34 and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
appellant accused of having committed the offences under
protection granted under section 438 to the appellants withdrawn
applications filed by the State allowed in the High Court challenged in
this appeal the High Court has overlooked the distinction of factors
relevant for rejecting BAIL in a non-bailable case in the first instance
and the cancellation of BAIL already granted very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the
cancellation of BAIL already granted, which, were missing in the instant
case nothing was brought to this Court's notice from which it could
be inferred that the appellants have not co-operated in the
investigations or have, in any manner, abused the concession of BAIL
granted to them the impugned order setting aside the anticipatory
BAIL granted to the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, cannot be sustained nothing said by the High Court or by this
Court shall be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of

the case.

2004)
Fateh Chand Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and
Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan (Vacation Bench).
abduction and rape prosecutrix was abducted by the appellant & his
wife fraudulently where she was sexually abused and coerced to indulge
in flesh trade after 1 years returned back to her house & produced
before police medically and rediologically examined proved guilt of
appellant convicted and sentence awarded appeal before High
Court conviction as well as sentence maintained hence this appeal
matter examined on evidence on record no doubt regarding the
age of prosecutrix as examined radiologically fraudulently taking the
prosecutrix away, subjecting her to rape and forcing her to indulge in
flesh trade by coercion grounds taken in the appeal are not worth
acceptance habitual to sexual intercourse, question of having any
physical injury marks would not arise appeal dismissed BAIL bonds
and surety bonds stand cancelled appellant to be taken into custody
to undergo the remaining part of sentence.

2009)
M.M. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Appellant Vs. J.P. Bhimani and
467, 471 & 120B criminal conspiracy, misappropriation, cheating etc.
administrator appointed on behalf of Bank unearthed a large scale
scam & defalcation of money made by respondents committing fraud of
crores of rupees criminal complaint against respondent respondent
arrested filed application for grant of BAIL allowed by High Court
appeal first respondent substantively complied with the directions
of the High Court appeal dismissed with no costs.

2009)
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. State
of Punjab and others Respondents, decided on 8/4/2009.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963 Section 438
conditions for granting anticipatory BAIL appellants lodged FIR
against the firm for committed misappropriation of a huge amount and
also created several forged and fraudulent credits respondents filed
an application for grant of anticipatory BAIL held High Court ought to
have considered the effect thereof, namely, the interim order has
thereby been made a final order which is impermissible in law an
interim order always passed subject to the final order impugned
order set aside matter remitted back to the High Court for
consideration of the appellant's application for cancellation of interim
BAIL as also the respondent's application for grant of anticipatory BAIL
appeal allowed.

2009)
Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Subject Index: The Extradition Act, 1962 appellant married with
respondent no. 6 at Mumbai & moved to California respondent no. 6
continuously being harassed Probate & Family court, Massachusetts
passed an order of temporary custody of the child, restraint & abuse
prevention ex-parte in favour of respondent no. 6 appellant came to
India with the child in violation of the court custody orders appellant
received a notice from Interpol being a Yellow or watch notice in
relation to child and notice being a Red or detain & Arrest in relation to
appellant whether having regard to the concept of sovereignty the
Executive Government of India can enforce a warrant passed by the
Probate & family court, Massachusetts? having regard to the
provisions of sec. 44A and 13 of CPC, is the foreign judgement
enforceable in India? whether the CBI established under the DPSE
Act has the country reign supreme in matters of extradition dispute
between the appellant and respondent no. 6 is a private dispute & no
criminal extraditable offence can be made in the absence of a specific
request for extradition if a violation of any order passed by a civil
court on ground of issuance of red corner notice, the court will enquire
as to whether the same has undergone the tests under sec. 13 & 44A of
CPC appellant held to be in lawful custody of his daughter under
further order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction impugned
judgment set aside appeal allowed with no cost.

2008)
Haru Ghosh Appellant Vs. State of West Bengal Respondent,

Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections, 302, 307-326
punishment of murder, attempt to murder, punishment for voluntary
causing grievous hurt appellant/accused tried for committed murder
of, one aged 30 years and another aged 12 years also tried for
attempting to murder under Section 307-326 of one aged 60 years
High Court confirmed the verdict of conviction, as also the death
sentence awarded by the Session Judge held whether the appellant
should be set to gallows? whether the present case is the 'rarest of
the rare' case? most dastardly murder of 2 helpless persons
appellant already previously convicted for an offence of murder and was
facing a sentence of life imprisonment and was on BAIL the present
case was not a pre-meditated murder appellant acted in a sudden
manner death sentence not confirmed instead would be
substituted by the sentence to remain in jail for minimum 35 years.

2009)
Hazari Lal Das Appellant Vs. State of West Bengal and another
Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438
application for anticipatory BAIL Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections
403, 409, 420 and 467/34 forged documents and misappropriation of
funds appellant/accused released on anticipatory BAIL
complainant filed petition for cancellation of anticipatory BAIL granted
to accused/appellant held nothing on record for interference or
attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice by the
appellant no record that concession granted to appellant been
abused in any manner appeal allowed.
2009 SCCL.COM 3019(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6235-6236

of 2009)
Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bailhongal
Appellant Vs. Quasami Janab Ajmatalla Salamulla and another
Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act determination of compensation
8 acres 7 guntas of respondent's land acquired for the benefit of the
Appellant Market Committee determined compensation as Rs.
36,000/- per acre reference Court increased it to Rs. 4 lacs per
acre High Court reduced the compensation with marginal reduction to

Rs. 3,75,200/- per acre hence this appeal no basis for calculating
the value of compensation no explanation why other sale
transactions ignored no finding that the land at serial No. 6 is
comparable to the acquired land and have similar development potential
no reasoning why the deduction towards developmental charges
restricted to 33% instead of the standard deduction of 50% to 67%
applicable to agricultural land matter remanded back to the High
Court for fresh disposal set aside the judgement of the High Court
appeal allowed.

2001 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 835-836 of 2002)
Sonali Mukherjee Appellant Vs. Union of India Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Mr. Justice V.S.
Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302 read with 34,
304I, 324 and 309 culpable homicide not amounting to murder with
common intention, causing hurt and attempt to commit suicide trial
of A-1 (deceased wife) and A-2 on the allegation of developed illegal
intimacy between them, as a result of which accused persons
committed murder of deceased A-2 acquitted High Court also
acquitted A-1 of the offence under Section 302 but convicted her for the
offence under Section 304 Part I no evidence to prove that the death
by poisoning was homicidal injuries on the body of the deceased had
nothing to do with the forcible administration of tablets to deceased
evidence about the illegal intimacy between A-1 and A-2 all hearsay
whole prosecution rests on suspicions and mere suspicion not enough to
convict the accused persons benefit of doubt to the accused persons
judgment of High Court and Trial Court for the conviction of A-1 set
aside appeal allowed and A-1 directed to be acquitted with
discharging the BAIL-bonds of the accused.

2006)
Vishnu and others Appellant(s) Vs. State of Rajasthan
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302 r/w 149, 325
r/w 149, 148, 323 r/w 149 and sec. 147 punishment for murder,
grievous hurt, rioting with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly with
common object dispute related to land assault and commission of
murder with common intention by the accused/appellants awarded
sentence to life imprisonment under sec. 302 r/w sec. 149 & fine of
Rs.200/-, simple imprisonment of 2 months under sec. 325 r/w 149,

R.I. for 3 months under sec. 323 r/w 149 held that deceased died a
homicidal death opinion of medical officer relevant testimony of
first informant & that of witness in complete corroboration from the
testimony of constable cumulative effect of the circumstances proved
that the intention of the unlawful assembly was to cause death of the
deceased & to cause injuries to the injured witnesses no interference
with the orders of the courts below for the conviction of the appellants
under sec. 302 r/w 149 appeal dismissed BAIL applications not
granted.

2009 With Civil Appeal No. 6894 of 2009)
Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Appellant Vs. The
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Mr. Justice G.S.
Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 Section 11(2) priority of payment of
contributions over other debts appellants advanced loan of Rs. 4000
lacs to sugar mill executed deed of pledge and also promissory note
for payment of amount failure of the employer to pay the dues of
provident fund warrant of attachment executed by the Enforcement
Officer whether the sugar bags pledged by Sugar Mills in favour of
appellant Bank as security for repayment of the loan together with
interest could be attached and sold for realization of the dues of
provident funds etc. payable by the employer the priority clause
under Section 11 operative against statutory as well as non-statutory
and secured as well as unsecured debts including a mortgage or pledge
title of the property remained with the Sugar Mills and only limited
interest passed on to the appellant Bank as security for repayment of
the loan in a contract of pawn, the right of property vests in the
pledgee so far as necessary to secure debt the sugar bags pledged
with the appellant-bank continued to be movable property i.e. assets of
the establishment, which could be attached and sold by the Recovery
Officer appeals dismissed.

2007)
Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and others Appellants Vs. State
of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 10/8/2009.
Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 read with
Sections 149, 148 and Section 326 read with Section 149 murder,
unlawful assembly with common object, rioting with deadly weapon

incident took place between the two rival political factions the trial
court rejected the evidence of eye-witnesses holding that because of a
sudden attack everybody tried to run away from the accused to save
their life and in a situation like this they must not have been in a
position to see actually who assaulted them High Court convicted all
the present appellants and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for
life and different period of sentence hence this appeal evidence of
the eye-witnesses broadly corroborated by the medical evidence in
respect of the deceased as well as the injuries sustained by them
proved beyond doubt that all the eight appellants are guilty of the
offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 326 read with
Section 149, I.P.C plea of alibi taken by A-2 not proved held that
the judgment of the trial court acquitting all the accused persons
suffered from factual and legal errors conviction and sentence
awarded by the High Court against A-2, A-3 and A-12 maintained and
conviction of A-4, A-5, A-6, A-10 and A-11 under Sections 148 and 326
read with Section 149 upheld but under Section 302 read with 149 set
aside.

2004)
V.K. Jain Appellant Vs. High Court of Delhi Through Registrar
General and others Respondents, decided on 9/23/2008.
Subject Index: Remarks expunging and deleting the same
respondent-3 (NRI) charge-sheeted by the CBI under Section 120-B
read with Sections 420/467/468 of IPC, 1860 and Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 granted
BAIL and permission to go to Hong Kong after depositing the passport
of respondent 4 and 5 (mother and wife) application of respondents
4 and 5 rejected by the appellant for releasing their passports till
returning of respondent-3 from abroad High Court allowed the
petition after giving unjustified and unnecessary remarks to the
judgement of the appellant hence this appeal held assuming that
the order passed by the appellant was wrong, even then the High Court
ought to have either modified or set aside the order, but the High Court
not justified in passing totally unmerited, derogatory, harsh and
castigating remarks against the appellant the impugned order set
aside to the extent of expunging the remarks made against the
appellant in the order appeal allowed.

2009)
Suman Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan and another

Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi.
power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 498A on the basis of
complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 and statements recorded, the
Investigating Officer filed chargesheet only against her in-laws but not
against the appellant application filed by the respondent No. 2 for
issuing process against the appellant Judicial Magistrate & Session
Judge directed the appellant be summoned through BAILable warrant
appellant challenged the revisional order as police not filed chargesheet
against her held that a person who is named in the first information
report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any
particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not
launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be
proceeded against under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if from the evidence
collected the Court is prima facie satisfied that such person has
committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused
whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking
cognizance against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC Yes
statements of complainant's parents in corroboration with that of the
complainant, clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in
demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment no interference in
the orders of the Courts below appeal dismissed.

(Criminal) No. 7343 of 2009 With SLP (Criminal) No. 7399 of 2009)
Redaul Hussain Khan Petitioner Vs. National Investigation
Agency Respondent, decided on 11/19/2009.
Subject Index: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section
43D(2)(b) read with Section 167, Cr.P.C. petitioner arrested for
sending Rs. 1 crore to an extremist organization, DHD(J) to purchase
arms and ammunitions Government of India issued notification for
declaring the DHD(J) along with its factions, wings and front
organizations to be an "unlawful association" learned Single Judge
dismissed the petitioner's BAIL application on the ground of jurisdiction
Session Judge (Special Court) extended the period of custody of
petitioner for further 60 days for completion of investigation appeal
held the grant of statutory BAIL to be rejected since, the learned
Sessions Judge (Special Court) had the jurisdiction to extend the time
for completion of the investigation appeal dismissed.
2002)
State of U.P. Appellant Vs. Ram Sajivan and others Respondents,
Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 149, 201, 302,
364 accused/appellants committed dacoities in the Harijan locality,
tied the deceased persons with rope and were taken to the bank of the
river Ganges, pushed in the boats, brutally murdered all of them and
thrown in the river Ganges PW-14/victim jumped into the stream and
saved his life trial Court convicted all the 18 accused and sentenced
them to life imprisonment High Court acquitted all the accused
without analyzing the entire evidences delay in giving statement by
PW-14 fully explained evidence of PW-14 and PW-27, head constable
concluded that the accused were squarely responsible for committing
such a ghastly crime 6 accused named by PW-14 in corroboration
from the testimony of PW-27, thus, no iota of doubt regarding their
participation in crime held the trial Court's view, the only possible
view in the facts of the case acquittal of 6 accused set aside and their
conviction recorded by the trial Court restored, while benefit of doubt
given to other 12 accused appeal partly allowed.
2009 SCCL.COM 3228(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.(s)

1026 of 2008)
Dilip Premnarayan Tiwari and another Appellant(s) Vs. State of
Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 12/10/2009.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302, 307, 452 r/w
120-B and 34 murder, assault, criminal conspiracy with common
intention trial court convicted & awarded death sentence to all the 3
accused/appellants for brutally assaulting PW-4 & PW-8 and murdering
3 persons of the family with inflicting blows of knives HC affirmed the
death sentence of all the 3 accused appeal PW-4 found the most
natural witness who had the opportunity to watch the dastardly attack
& also identified all the 3 accused persons held the evidence of the 2
eye-witnesses as credible & completely fixes the criminal liability on the
parts of the accused persons the conviction orders of the trial court
and of the HC confirmed as against all the 3 accused/appellants
award of death sentence converted to life imprisonment for not less
than 25 years of actual imprisonment to A-1 & A-3 and actual
punishment of 20 years to A-2 appeals dismissed with modification in
sentences.

of 2006 With Criminal Appeal No. 87, 91-94 of 2006)
Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and another Appellants Vs. State of

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302, 307, 109,
120-B/34 MCOC Act, 1999 Section 3(1) read 2(e), 3(2) read with
Section 120-B of IPC Arms Act Section 3 & 7, Section 25(1A),
25(1B) all the 8 accused convicted and sentenced for the commission
of offence that resulted in the death of 3 persons and caused grievous
injury to 7 appeal by State for imposition of capital sentence on A-5,
A-6 (contract killers working for chotta Shakeel and Faheem) & A-7
(agent of ISI) Cri A.1 execution of the death sentence makes
miscarriage of justice irrevocable Cr. A.2 confessional statements
of accused person proved their active participation in the crime
recovery of weapons used in the crime reliance on the testimony of
eye-witnesses High Court awarded life imprisonment in place of
death sentence order of acquittal passed by High Court for A-5 and
A-6 set aside and directed to undergo R.I. for life A-7 sentenced to
capital punishment by the trial Court which was altered by High Court to
R.I. for life no interference with the order of High Court in respect of
A-7 sentence of imprisonment of life to A-8 maintained.

2009)
HDFC Bank Ltd. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. J.J. Mannan @ J.M. John
Paul and another Respondents, decided on 12/16/2009.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 419, 420, 468,
473 read with Section 120-B offence under appeal filed for
cancellation of order granting anticipatory BAIL to the respondent No. 1
loan of Rs. 2,03,40,000/- sanctioned to the respondent No. 1 for
purchase of 6 Krishna Electronic Sensor Paver Finishers 6 cheques for
the loan amount drawn in the name of M/s. Krishna Engineering Works,
were handed over to the Respondent No. 1 no payment was received
by M/s Krishna Engineering Works FIR drawn up against the
respondent No. 1 learned Single Judge granted anticipatory BAIL to
the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the investigating agency had
already seized all relevant and vital documents, the custodial
interrogation of the Respondent No. 1 was not required appeal
held that on the strength of an order granting Anticipatory BAIL, an
accused against whom charge has been framed, cannot avoid appearing
before the trial court order of the High Court modified to the extent
that the Respondent No. 1 shall surrender before the Trial Court
forthwith and pray for regular BAIL and the Trial Court shall dispose of
the same on merits, in accordance with law appeal allowed.

2002)
Darshan Singh Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and another
Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly (Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 96, 97 and 100
right to private defence dispute regarding partition of land between
both the parties which led to the unfortunate incident resulting death of
the deceased when appellant fired from his licensed gun the factum
of the incident not been denied by the accused and claimed right of
private defence trial Court held the presence of both eye-witnesses
PW7 and PW8 at the time of alleged occurrence highly doubtful as no
pellet recovered from the injuries of these witnesses and thus, the
possibility of these injuries on their person having been fabricated at a
later stage cannot be ruled out trial Court further held that the
possibility of the injuries having been caused to deceased by the
appellant in exercise of private defence cannot ruled out, thus, benefit
given to the accused and acquitted him of all the charges High Court
reversed the trial Court's judgement of acquittal and convicted the
accused appeal this Court opined that when a shot was fired from
a 12-bore gun and if no pellet was recovered, then the trial court rightly
concluded that the injuries were not caused by a fire arm held that
as per the facts of the case, the appellant had the serious apprehension
of death or at least the grievous hurt when he exercised his right of
private defence to save himself. The role attributed to the appellant
fully covered by his right of private defence impugned judgement of
the High Court set aside and that of the trial Court restored appeal
allowed acquittal.

Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Appellant Vs. Intelligence
Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another Respondents,
Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 Sections 24, 29, 30 and 38
offences under Section 36A(4) read with Section 167(2), CrPC, 1973
BAIL application filed under Special Judge remanded the appellant
to judicial custody and the period extended from time to time on the
applications of the Investigation Bureau total custody of the appellant
brought to 1 year and 2 days appellant moved BAIL application on
the ground that the investigation not been completed within the
stipulated period of time fixed by the Special Judge BAIL application
rejected by the trial Court and also by the High Court appeal held
that the first application for extension of period for completion of
investigation been filed by the investigating officer of respondent No. 1
without indicating the progress of the investigation, nor the compelling

reasons which required an extension of custody beyond 180 days no
notices were issued to the appellant before granting applications for the
extension of the custody held that the extensions granted to the
investigating department under the proviso to Section 36A (4) did not
satisfy the conditions laid down therein order of the Special Judge
and of the High Court set aside directed the appellant be released on
BAIL appeal allowed.

2010)
Economic Transport Organization, Delhi Appellant Vs. M/s.
Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. and another Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice R. V.
Raveendran, Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble
Subject Index: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g)
deficiency in service/negligence Careers Act, 1865 Section 9 the
first respondent entrusted a consignment of hosiery cotton yarn to the
appellant for transportation and delivery to a consignee at Calcutta
said consignment was insured by the second respondent covering
transit risks consignment completely damaged as the goods vehicle
met with an accident on the basis of a surveyor's certificate the
second respondent settled the claim of the first respondent and on
receiving the payment, the first respondent executed a Letter of
Subrogation-cum-Special Power of Attorney in favour of the second
respondent respondents 1 & 2 filed complaint against the appellant
for settlement of compensation claim District Forum allowed the
complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 4,47,436/- with interest
@12% p.a. to the insurer, on the basis of subrogation the National
Commission affirmed the orders of the lower Foras appeal where
the letter of subrogation executed by an assured in favour of the insurer
whether the document ceases to be a subrogation and becomes an
assignment? whether the insurer as subrogee, can lodge a complaint
under the Act, either in the name of the assured, or in the joint names
of the insurer and assured as co-complainants? Yes whether the
insurer as the assignee can file a complaint either in its own name, or in
the name of the assured, or by joining the assured as a co-complainant
whether relief could be granted in a complaint against the
carrier/service provider, in the absence of any proof of negligence?
this Court held that whether the document executed by the assured in
favour of the insurer is a subrogation simpliciter, or a subrogation-cumassignment, it may not be relevant for deciding the maintainability of a
complaint under the Act but, the insurer cannot in its own name
maintain a complaint before a consumer forum as per the provisions
of Section 9 of the Act 1865, where the consignor establishes loss or
damage or non-delivery of goods, it is deemed that negligence on the
part of the carrier is established held no interference to the

impugned orders of the National Forum appeal dismissed.
2010 SCCL.COM 269(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Miscellaneous

Petition No. 6426 of 2010 In Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2009)
Mohan Mali and another Appellants Vs. State of M.P.
Name of the Judge: For the Appellants : S.K. Dubey, Sr. Advocate,
Rajesh, Dharm Singh and Yogesh Tiwari, Advocates, with him For the
Respondent : Pramod Swarup, Sr. Advocate, Vikas Bansal, C.D. Singh,
Sunny Chaudhary an.
Subject Index: Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act,
2000 and Rules, 2007 Sections 7A, 15 and 64 read with Rule 98
claim of juvenility and disposal of cases of juveniles in conflict with law
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 326, 324 read with Section
34 conviction and sentence under upon due verification, it was
confirmed that the Appellant No.2 was a juvenile on the date of
commission of the offence the juvenile, appellant No. 2 had already
been tried along with adults and convicted under Sections 302/34,
326/34 and 324/34 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment, out of
which he has already undergone about 9 years of the sentence by
applying the provisions of Rule 98 read with Section 15 and 64 of the
2000 Act, this Court directed the appellant No. 2 to be released and the
BAIL application filed on his behalf disposed of, accordingly.

No. 3224 of 2010)
Mukesh Kishanpuria Petitioner Vs. State of West Bengal
Subject Index: (A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 438
petition under for grant of anticipatory BAIL rejected by the High
Court appeal this Court held that the petitioner may apply for
regular BAIL before the Court concerned and alongwith the said
application, he may file an application for interim BAIL pending disposal
of the regular BAIL application. (B) Constitution of India, 1950 Article
21 a person should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish
prima facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent.

2010 With Criminal Appeal No. 960 of 2010)
Rabindra Nath Singh Appellant with State of Bihar through C.B.I.
Appellant Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another

Subject Index: Bail application granted despite the clear
direction of this Court that no further BAIL application of the accused
shall be entertained, the High Court has granted BAIL to the
respondent-accused which amounts to contempt of order of this Court
impugned orders of the High Court set aside BAIL application of
the respondent-accused cancelled appeals allowed.

Devender Kumar and another etc. Appellants Vs. State of
Haryana and others etc. Respondents, decided on 5/5/2010.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 498-A, 406, 506
read with Section 34 FIR registered under the learned Magistrate
granted BAIL to the appellant. However, the High Court rejected the
BAIL granted to the appellant and allowed the application of the SHO
for police remand of the accused for 3 days appeal no allegation
that any attempt had been made after the Appellants were granted
BAIL to recover the articles alleged to have been given to the Appellant
No.1 at the time of marriage with the complainant this Court viewed
that the direction of the High Court for arrest of the Appellants on the
ground that disclosures have been made by the Appellants and that
their police custody was necessary for recovery of the same, were not
sufficient for the purpose of cancellation of BAIL granted earlier held
that within the first 15 days of arrest the Magistrate may remand the
accused either to judicial custody or police custody for a given number
of days, but once the period of 15 days expires, the Magistrate cannot
pass orders for police remand impugned orders directing cancellation
of BAIL and re-arrest passed by the High Court set aside appeals
allowed.

2010)
Shivjee Singh Appellant Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 202(1) and
(2) for issuance of process IPC, 1860 Section 302 read with
Section 120-B and Section 27 of the Arms Act cognizance for the
offence under whether examination of all witnesses cited in the
complaint is sine qua non for taking cognizance by a Magistrate in a
case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the appellant's son

was said to have been killed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. After
conducting investigation, the police submitted final form with the
finding that they had no clue about the culprits. Thereupon, the
appellant filed a protest petition After considering the statements of
the appellant and two witnesses, Chief Judicial Magistrate took
cognizance against respondent Nos.1 to 4 for offence under Section 302
read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act and directed issue of non BAILable warrants against them. However,
the learned Single Judge held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate could
not have taken cognizance against the respondents without requiring
the appellant to examine all the witnesses and remitted the matter to
the concerned court for passing appropriate order after making further
inquiry in the light of proviso to Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. appeal held
that examination of all the witnesses cited in the complaint or whose
names are disclosed by the complainant in furtherance of the direction
given by the Magistrate in terms of proviso to Section 202(2) is not a
condition precedent for taking cognizance and issue of process against
the persons named as accused in the complaint. Consequence of such
non-examination is to be considered at the trial and not at the stage of
issuing process impugned order of the High Court set aside appeal
allowed.

Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel Petitioner/Appellant Vs. State of
Gujarat and others Respondents, decided on 7/8/2010.
Subject Index: Anticipatory BAIL granted appeal against the said
order the Respondent No.2 and his associates together with a mob of
about 20 persons carrying sticks, scythes and arms, illegally entered
into Nidhwad Survey No.66, which the complainant contended
belonging to him and his family members, and threatened to dispossess
them by force from the said land. Immediately after the said incident
the petitioner tried to lodge a complaint but such complaint was not
registered and within half an hour thereafter the mob came back and
assaulted the complainant and his associates with sticks and scythes
and caused serious injuries to them FIR was registered the trial
Court allowed the prayer of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for grant of
anticipatory BAIL which was challenged by the petitioner the High
Court upheld the order of the trial court granting anticipatory BAIL to
the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in connection with the F.I.R. hence, the
petition this Court observed that on account of the different versions
noticed in the three different complaints made in respect of the incident
and that allegations with regard to offences under Sections 395, 397,
467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. were sought to be added at a later stage of
investigation, no case has been made out for allowing the petitioner's
application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.

petition dismissed.
2010 SCCL.COM 532(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 960

of 2010)
Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav Appellant(s) Vs. State of Bihar
thru CBI Respondent(s), decided on 8/5/2010.
Subject Index: Review Petition seeking review of this Court's order
whereby the impugned judgment granting BAIL to the petitioner set
aside application for exemption from surrendering despite
cancellation of BAIL of the accused by this Court, neither the accused
has surrendered nor he has been taken into custody the CBI and
Director General of Police are directed to execute the order of this Court
petition dismissed.
2010 SCCL.COM 551(Case/Appeal No: SLP Criminal No.6408 of

2006)
Jaywant P. Sankpal Petitioner Vs. Suman Gholap and others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Dr.
Subject Index: Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 section 12(a)
the complainant/respondent no.1 filed complaint before the
Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission alleging that instead of
recording the complaint made by her or her son against Abbas Ali, the
police registered a case against her son at the behest of Abbas Ali and
illegally detained him in policy custody till he was released on BAIL
the Commission observed the Doctor's evidence that the Baban was
treated for tenderness over the left anterior chest, which indicated
hairline fracture on his ribs, therefore, while holding that there had
been violation of Baban's human rights at the hands of the Respondent
Nos.3, 4 and 5 and the Petitioner, directed the State Government to
recover the amount of Rs.45,000/- from the respondents and to pay the
same to the complainant the High Court affirmed the said orders
hence, the petition sufficient material on record duly looked into by
the Commission and the High Court that the son of the Respondent
No.1 had been physically tortured while in custody in violation of the
norms relating to custody of persons arrested or detained in connection
with any offence held no interference with the order of the
Commission or the High Court, petition dismissed.
2010 SCCL.COM 557(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.127-130
of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No.1632-1634 of 2010)

C. Muniappan and others Appellants Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Respondent with D.K. Rajendran and others etc. etc. Appellants,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Dr.
Justice B.S. Chauhan.
302 Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992
sections 3 & 4 a demonstration by the appellants which had started
peacefully, took an ugly turn when the appellants started damaging
public transport vehicles. Further, accused Nos.2, 3 & 4 went to the
extent of sprinkling petrol in a bus full of girl students and setting it on
fire with the students still inside the bus. 3 students burnt alive inside
the bus and some of the girls students got burn injuries the trial
court convicted several accused under various offences and A-2, 3 & 4
were sentenced to death while other accused were awarded different
punishment for different offences. The High Court confirmed the
conviction and sentence of death against accused Nos.2 to4 alongwith
other sentences appeal the damage caused to the public transport
vehicles and the consequential burning of the University bus remained
part of one and the same incident all the accused for whom Test
Identification Parades were conducted were identified by some of the
witnesses in the jail and were also identified by some of the eye
witnesses/injured witnesses in the court the presence of the accused
had also been established by press and media persons who were
present at the scene of the occurrence, as well as by the complainant.
The presence of A.2 to A.4 with the other accused at the place of
agitation stands established A-4 kept the engine of the motor cycle
running only to escape from the scene of occurrence along with A-2 and
A-3 which indicate the mind of the accused to commit the offence and
to flee from the scene of occurrence to avoid the clutches of law held
no justification for the commission of such a brutal offence which shows
the highest degree of depravity and brutality on the part of A-2, 3 & 4,
thus, no interference with the punishment of death sentence awarded
to A-2, 3 & 4 however, the sentences of other appellants reduced to the
period already undergone appeals dismissed.
2010 SCCL.COM 576(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.1486 of

2003 with Crl. A. No.24 of 2005)
Reserve Bank of India Appellant Vs. GM, Coope. Bank
Deposit.A/C/H. & S.H.A. and others Respondents, decided on
8/12/2010.
Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad.
Subject Index: Banking Regulation Act, 1949 infringement of the
provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 439 BAIL
application under in respect of an offence alleged to have been
committed by respondent No.3, the Ex-Chairman of the Bank,
respondent No. 4 granted the High Court, however, did not cancel
the BAIL granted to respondent No. 3 but made a consequential order
that depositors who had made deposits of less than Rs. 10,000/- should
have their deposits released as and when funds were received by the
respondent No.3 - cooperative bank appeal this court opined that
the consequences of the directions of the High Court are in way beyond
the scope of an application for BAIL filed by an accused under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C., thus, it is not open to the High Court to pass orders
which could affect the working of Banks all over the country.
impugned order set aside appeal allowed.
2010 SCCL.COM 778(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).2086

of 2010)
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Appellant(s) Vs. Ashis Chatterjee &
another Respondent(s), decided on 10/29/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Dr.
Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure, Code, 1973 section 439
application for grant of regular BAIL allowed appeal against
Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302 punishment of murder
accused facing trial for an offence punishable under the
accused/respondent No.1 is alleged to have committed a heinous crime
of killing an old helpless lady by strangulation. He was seen coming out
of the victim's house by a neighbour around the time of the alleged
occurrence, giving rise to a reasonable belief that he had committed the
murder the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected three BAIL
applications of the accused this Court held that BAIL under Section
439 of the Code should not have been granted to the accused, more so,
when even charges have not yet been framed impugned order set
aside and BAIL granted to the accused cancelled appeal allowed.
2010 SCCL.COM 779(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No (s). 9344 of

2010 With C.A Nos. 9345,9346,9347,9348,9350-9351 of 2010)
Association of Leasing & Financial Service Companies
Appellant(s) Vs. Union of India & others Respondent(s), decided
on 10/26/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.
Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar .
Subject Index: Finance Act, 1994 sections 65(12), 65(105) (zm)
and 66 levy of Service Tax on leasing and hire purchase validity of
the provisions under in challenge Constitution of India, 1950
Article 366 (29A) tax on the sale or purchase of goods being
aggrieved by the inclusion of hire-purchase and leasing services within
the service tax net, the appellant challenged the amendment of 2001 as
ultra vires the legislative competence of the Parliament the High
Court dismissed the writ petition appeals whether the State
Legislature has the exclusive competence to levy tax on "financial

leasing services" under Entry 54, List II Yes equipment Leasing
and Hire-Purchase Finance are activities of long term financing and they
fall within the ambit of "banking and other financial services" in case
of financial leasing including equipment leasing and hire-purchase, the
amount received as principal is not the consideration for services
rendered. Such amount is credited to the capital account of the lessor/
hire-purchase service provider. It is the interest/ finance charge which
is treated as income or revenue and which is credited to the revenue
account. Such interest or finance charges together with the lease
management fee/ processing fee/ documentation charges are treated
as considerations for the services rendered and accordingly they
constitute the value of taxable services on which service tax is made
payable. Merely because service tax is imposed on financial services
with reference to "hiring/ interest" charges, the impugned tax does not
cease to be service tax and nor does it become tax on hire-purchase/
leasing transactions under Article 366(29A) read with Entry 54, List II
appeals dismissed.

of 2010)
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Appellant(s) Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others Respondent(s), decided on 12/2/2010.
Mr. Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 438 ambit
and scope of to consider the appellant along with his brother
instigated their party workers which led to killing of one person. The
alleged incident took place after eight days of the alleged incident of
instigation the High Court declined anticipatory BAIL to the appellant
appeal whether the powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. are subject
to limitation of section 437 Cr.P.C. no the courts considering the
BAIL application should try to maintain fine balance between the
societal interest vis-a-vis personal liberty while adhering to the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is
presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court
section 438 Cr.P.C. does not mention anything about the duration to
which a direction for release on BAIL in the event of arrest can be
granted. The order granting anticipatory BAIL is a direction specifically
to release the accused on BAIL in the event of his arrest held that
once the accused is released on BAIL by the trial court, then it would be
unreasonable to compel the accused to surrender before the trial court
and again apply for regular BAIL. The validity of the restrictions that the
accused released on anticipatory BAIL must submit himself to custody
and only thereafter can apply for regular BAIL is contrary to the basic
intention and spirit of section 438 Cr.P.C. It is also contrary to Article 21
of the Constitution the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court declining anticipatory BAIL to the appellant set aside the
appellant is directed to join the investigation and in the event of arrest

the appellant shall be released on BAIL on his furnishing a personal
bond appeal allowed.
2011 SCCL.COM 2(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 3 of

2011)
State of Kerala Appellant(s) Vs. Dr. Raneef Respondent(s),
Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 section 43
D(5) application of to consider BAIL granted to the respondentdentist under challenge seven assailants came in a Maruti Van and
assaulted Prof. T.J. Jacob and chopped off his right palm. The role
attributed to the respondent is that he treated one of the injured
assailants by suturing (stitching) his wound on the back after applying
local anesthesia at a place 45 kms. away from the place of the incident
no allegation that the respondent was one of the assailants. Even, no
prima facie proof that the respondent was involved in the crime. Hence
Section 43D(5) has not been violated the Supreme Court opined that
even a dentist can apply stitches in an emergency. Prima facie the only
offence that can be levelled against the respondent is under Section
202 I.P.C., of omitting to give information of the crime to the police.
And it is yet to consider whether all members of the organization can be
automatically held to be guilty held no reason for denial of BAIL to
the respondent appeal dismissed.

2011)
Kanaka Rekha Naik Appellant Vs. Manoj Kumar Pradhan &
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 147, 326 r/w
section 149 punishment of rioting and grievous hurt shared with
common object of unlawful assembly the High Court granted BAIL to
the respondent a sitting M.L.A., who has been convicted under Sections
147, 326 read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced to seven years
rigorous imprisonment hence, the appeal the fact not disputed
that the respondent is involved in more than one case of similar nature
of rioting etc. the High Court did not record even a single reason
confining the relief of releasing on BAIL only to the respondent, though
there are two appellants in the appeal preferred challenging the
judgment of the trial Court the Supreme Court opined that the order
clearly reflects that the High Court was mainly impressed by the fact
that the respondent is a sitting M.L.A. the impugned order set aside
and the matter is remitted to the High Court for its fresh consideration
in accordance with law appeal allowed.

2011 With Criminal Appeal No.754 of 2011with Criminal Appeal No.752
of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No.749 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal
No.753 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No.750 of 2011 with Criminal
Appeal No.751 of 2011)
Ravindra Pal Singh Appellant Vs. Ajit Singh and another
Respondents with Santosh Kumar Jaiswal & another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Bail application filed by the respondents allegedly
involved in false encounter the trial Court rejected the BAIL
application however, the High Court granted BAIL to the accused
appeal the Supreme Court opined that the allegations made against
the respondents cannot be brushed aside at the stage and the High
Court also ought to have taken into consideration the serious nature of
the allegations, the possibilities of undue influence being exerted on the
witness for the prosecution at the instance of the police officials
impugned orders of the High Court set aside appeals allowed.
2011 SCCL.COM 290(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s).115

of 2007)
Narmada Bai Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Gujarat & others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Dr.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 Article 32 writ petition
filed under by the petitioner for directing the CBI to register a First
Information Report and investigate into the fake encounter killing of her
son whether after filing of the charge-sheet by the State agency, the
Court is precluded from appointing any other independent specialized
agency like the CBI to go into the same issues if the earlier
investigation was not done as per the established procedure no
whether the petitioner has made out a case for entrusting the
investigation to the CBI Yes the investigation revealed that the
alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati was done in order to
eliminate him as he was the key witness in the criminal conspiracy of
the abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi by the powerful
and the influential accused persons. It is the definite case of the CBI
that the abduction of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi and their subsequent
murders as well as the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati are one series of
acts, and if two parts of the same transaction are investigated and
prosecuted by different agencies, it may cause failure of justice not only
in one case but in other trial as well analysis of the materials showed
several lacuna on the part of the investigation by the State Government
in light of the involvement of the police officials of State of Gujarat,
Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan, the Supreme Court directed the Police
Authorities of the Gujarat State to handover all the records of the case
to the CBI for further investigation relating to the killing of Tulsiram
Prajapati writ petition allowed.

2011 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 756, 757, 759, 760, 762, 763 & 764 of
2011)
Rekha Appellant(s) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Tr. Sec. to Govt. &
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha
Misra.
Subject Index: A) Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates
Act, 1982 detention order under against the detenue for selling
expired drugs after tampering with the labels and printing fresh labels
showing them as non-expired drugs neither the date of the alleged
BAIL orders has been mentioned in the detention order, nor the BAIL
application number, nor whether the BAIL orders were passed in respect
of the co-accused on the same case, nor whether the BAIL orders were
passed in respect of other co-accused in cases on the same footing as
the case of the accused the detention order in question contained
ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused
coming out on BAIL and there was no relevant material on which the
detention order was passed impugned detention order quashed
appeal allowed. B) Preventive detention if the ordinary law of the
land (Indian Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal with a
situation, recourse to a preventive detention law will be illegal.

2005 With Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No.
1531 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal No. 1532 of 2005 with Criminal
Appeal No. 864 of 2011)
Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan Appellant with Manikantan @
Kochani Appellant with Manoharan Appellant with Vinod Kumar
@ Vinod Appellant Vs. State of Kerala Respondent, decided on
4/4/2011.
Subject Index: A) IPC, 1860 sections 324, 326, 328, 201 Abkari
Act sections 57A(1)(ii), 55(h) & (i), 58 adulteration of liquor or
intoxicating drug with noxious substances, etc conviction and

sentence for commission of the offence under the prosecution alleged
that the conspiracy was hatched amongst all the accused and because
of the criminal act on the part of the accused of mixing poisonous
methyl spirit, death of as many as 31 persons was caused, as many as
266 persons suffered grievous injuries while 5 persons lost their eye
sight completely the accused persons have not offered any evidence
so as to discharge the burden put against them under section 57A (1)
(v) the prosecution has clearly proved that there was a noxious
substance which was likely to endanger the human life and that
substance was mixed, permitted to be mixed and was being regularly
mixed with liquor. The persons mixing had the knowledge that methanol
was a dangerous substance and it is proved that as a result of mixing of
methanol with the liquor and as a result of consuming such liquor as
many as 31 persons lost their lives and number of others suffered
grievous injuries no question about the absence of conspiracy PW53 gave a complete graphic description of the occurrence and his
evidence was not shaken in any manner in his cross-examination the
medical certificates as also the post-mortem reports have been
meticulously dealt with the evidence of the witness proving such
certificates as also the evidence of the doctors the Supreme Court
found no instance of inadmissible evidence having been accepted or
some material evidence having been ignored by the Courts below
conviction orders confirmed appeals disposed. B) Abkari Act
section 57A (1)(ii) if, as a result of act of mixing of the liquor with
noxious or dangerous substance death is caused, the extreme penalty
of death also is provided.

of 2004)
Muttu Karuppan Appellant(s) Vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice H.L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 sections 2(c), 12
'criminal contempt' conviction and sentence under Respondent
No.1/elected MLA filed Contempt Application before the High Court
stating that on the direction, supervision and knowledge of the
appellant Respondent No. 2 moved an application to cancel the BAIL
granted to him on the basis of false statement thereby prevented him
from attending the Assembly the High Court held the appellant and
Respondent No.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 2(c)
and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under
Section 12 of the Act appeal in respect of violence on the day of
election, Respondent No. 1 was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody the analysis of affidavits of the Inspector of Police, Assistant
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police show that there is no
acceptable material that the affidavit containing wrong information filed
by Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of BAIL and stay of BAIL order was
made at the instance of the Commissioner of Police the author of the
affidavit, Respondent No. 2 specifically denied the allegation that the
application for cancellation of BAIL was moved under the direction,
supervision and knowledge of the appellant the Supreme Court held
that in the absence of specific reference about consultation with the
Commissioner of Police or direction to the two officers, Assistant
Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police merely
because both of them attended the office of the Public Prosecutor for
preparation of an application for cancellation of BAIL based on the
affidavit of the Inspector of Police, it cannot be presumed and
concluded that the appellant was responsible for giving incorrect
information by Respondent No. 2 before the High Court impugned
order of the High Court qua the appellant set aside appeal allowed.
2011 SCCL.COM 347(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (C)

No.18914 of 2010)
Union of India & others Petitioners Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt.
Ltd. Respondent, decided on 4/18/2011.
Subject Index: Risk and Cost Tender for construction of a Rail overBridge at BAILey Road contract awarded to the respondent company
alteration of the plan writ petition filed challenging the directions
given by the Railway Authorities for completion of the entire work,
including the extended work on the contention that having failed to get
any suitable response to the fresh Tender floated in respect of the
additional work, it was not open to the Petitioners to compel it to
complete the same at an arbitrarily low price, particularly when the
additional work was not part of the original Tender allowed hence,
the petition the delay occasioned in starting the work was not on
account of any fault or lapses on the part of the Respondent Company,
but on account of the fact that the project design of the work to be
undertaken could not be completed and ultimately involved change in
the design itself the Respondent Company satisfactorily explained
their position regarding their offer being confined only to the balance
work of the original Tender and not to the extended work the entire
design of the Rail Over-Bridge was altered, converting the same into a
completely new project, thus, to proceed on the basis that the
Respondent Company was willing to undertake the entire work at the
old rates was an error of judgment and the termination of the contract
on the basis of said supposition was unjustified and was rightly set
aside SLP dismissed no costs.
2011 SCCL.COM 359(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 985986 of 2011)
CBI Hyderabad Appellant(s) Vs. Subramani Gopalakrishnan &

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 120-B r/w sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A FIR registered under against the
then Chairman, Directors and Auditors of M/s. Satyam Computer
Services Limited Corporate scam fudging of the company accounts
and manipulation of records investigation entrusted to the CBI the
High Court enlarged the respondents A4 and A10 on BAIL by imposing
certain conditions hence, the appeals the Supreme Court held that
in the facts and circumstances of the magnitude of the scam, the BAIL
granted in favour of all the main accused have been cancelled and the
Respondent Nos. A4 and A10 being external and internal auditors
respectively, their role being paramount in inflating processing assets
and bank balances of M/s SCSL, the High Court is not justified in
granting BAIL impugned order of the High Court granting BAIL in
favour of the respondents A-4 and A-10 set aside appeals allowed.
2011 SCCL.COM 396(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.11741178 of 2011)

Prakash Kadam & etc. etc. Appellant(s) Vs. Ramprasad
Vishwanath Gupta & another Respondent(s), decided on
5/13/2011.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302/34, 120-B,
364/34 chargesheet filed under against the appellants policemen
accused of a contract killing being engaged by a private person to
eliminate the deceased BAIL application filed the Sessions Court
granted BAIL to the appellants but that was cancelled by the High Court
appeal the accused version that the deceased was shot in a police
encounter found to be false during the investigation. The prosecution
material collected during the investigation prima facie indicates that
deceased was abducted during the day time and was taken to
D.N.Nagar Police Station and from there he was taken to some
unknown place where he was shot dead the Supreme Court held that
the accused/appellants are police personnel and it was their duty to
uphold the law, but far from performing their duty, they appear to have
operated as criminals, thus, the High Court was perfectly justified in
cancelling the BAIL to the accused-appellants appeal dismissed.

2009 With Criminal Appeal No. 1719 of 2011)
Mrinal Das & others Appellant(s) Vs. The State of Tripura
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302/34
conviction and sentence for commission of the offences under the
trial Court acquitted ten accused persons and convicted A-5 and A-11
for the offences. However, the High Court confirmed the conviction of A5 and A-11 and set aside the acquittal of 4 persons and convicted them
u/sec. 302/34 IPC hence, the appeals three eye-witnesses
including PW-6 (approver) identified 6 offenders including 2 convictsappellants the trial Court was of the view that the evidence of an
approver contains full and correct version of the incident so far as
participation of the accused (A-5) and (A-11), however, there is no
plausible reason by the trial Court as to why the other part of the
statement of the approver could not be believed the materials placed
by the prosecution, particularly, from the eye-witnesses, the common
intention can be inferred among the accused persons including the six
persons identified by the eye-witnesses, thus, the High Court is right in
applying Section 34 IPC and basing conviction of six accused persons
including the two convicted appellants the Supreme Court found no
inconsistency between the contents of the post-mortem examination
report and the ocular evidence of the approver (PW-6) conviction
orders confirmed appeals dismissed.
2011 SCCL.COM 623(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).

1660-1662 of 2011)
Santosh Kumar Appellant Vs. State of J & K & others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 sections 267, 268,
269 Ranbir Penal Code sections 302, 109, 147, 148, 149
charges framed against the respondents for commission of the offences
under appeal against the High Court set aside the order passed by
the trial court framing charge against the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and
remanded the case to the trial court to consider it in terms of Sections
267, 268 and 269 of the CrPC, 1989 hence, the appeals whether
proper charge was framed against the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 yes
having noticed the charge which was separately framed against each
accused, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in law
in holding that it was obligatory for the trial court to have indicated in
its order and the charge sheet the description of the offences for which
one or the other accused had to be tried nothing produced on record
to suggest or indicate that the accused had misled by any error or
omission in the Charge impugned order of the High Court set aside
and the order by which the accused except accused Subhash Singh are
enlarged on interim BAIL is also set aside appeals disposed.

No. 5568 of 2011)
Bhaskar Mishra Petitioner Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 307 case
registered under against the appellant CrPC, 1973 sections 438
and 439 applications filed for anticipatory BAIL on several occassions
the Supreme Court directed that no further application for BAIL
anticipatory or otherwise will be entertained by any Court until and
unless the petitioner deposits a sum of Rupees One Lac before the
Court of Sessions at Indore as a pre condition for the consideration of
any BAIL application for the grant of regular BAIL Special Leave
Petition dismissed.
2011 SCCL.COM 662(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.18711872 of 2011)

Rajesh Kumar Appellant(s) Vs. State through Govt. of NCT of
Delhi Respondent(s), decided on 9/28/2011.
Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302 punishment
of murder conviction under penalty of death sentence imposed
upon the appellant for committing murder of his two minor children
appeal against the State failed to show that the appellant is a
continuing threat to society or that he is beyond reform and
rehabilitation the Supreme Court observed that there was no premeditation in the act of the accused and it is unknown under what
circumstances accused entered the house of deceased and what
prompted him to assault the boy, thus held that the cruel manner in
which the murder was committed cannot be the guiding factor in favour
of death sentence conviction of the appellant upheld and the death
sentence imposed is substituted by the sentence of imprisonment for
life appeals allowed.

2011)
Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur Appellant Vs. State of
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. M. Panchal and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice H. L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 Article 22(1) & (2)
CrPC, 1973 section 167(2) whether violation of case related to
Malegaon bomb blast the appellant filed criminal application to
enlarge her on BAIL on the ground of violation of the mandate of Article
22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India and also on the ground of
non-filing of charge sheet within 90 days as contemplated by Section
167(2) of the CrPC rejected by the High Court hence, the appeal
the material facts clearly showed that there was no arrest of the
appellant on October 10, 2008. The appellant was called for
interrogation which is not equivalent to her arrest and detention. All
throughout between October 10, 2008 and prior to her arrest on
October 23, 2008 her disciple, Bhim Bhai Pasricha was with her the
Supreme Court found that when the appellant was produced before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasik on October 24, 2008, there was no
allegation of any ill treatment by the Police. Moreover the charge sheet
was filed before the expiry of 90 days from the date of first remand
the appellant has not claimed BAIL on merits no violation of Article
22(2) of the Constitution, because on being arrested on October 23,
2008, the appellant was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nasik on October 24, 2008 and subsequent detention in custody is
pursuant to order of remand by the Court, which orders are not being
challenged appeal dismissed.

66 of 2011 with Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 85 of 2010 and Writ Petition
(Crl.) Nos. 74,87,101 & 102 of 2011 with Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 74 of
2010 With Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 36, 37, 51, 76 & 84 of 2011 And Crl.
MP No. 10673 of 2011 in WP (Crl.) No. 76 of 2011)
Om Prakash & another Petitioner(s) with Choith Nanikram
Harchandani Petitioner Vs. Union of India & another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Central Excise Act, 1944 sections 9A, 13 Customs
Act, 1962 section 104(A) question of BAILability to consider
since all offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Customs
Act, 1962, are non-cognizable, are such offences BAILable held yes
the provisions of Section 104(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, and
Section 13 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, vest Customs Officers and
Excise Officers with the same powers as that of a Police Officer in
charge of a Police Station, which include the power to release on BAIL
upon arrest in respect of offences committed under the two enactments
which are uniformly non-cognizable the Supreme Court viewed that
the offences under the 1944 Act and 1962 Act cannot be equated with
offences under the Indian Penal Code which have been made noncognizable and non-bailable the offences under the 1944 Act and
Customs Act, 1962 are held to be BAILable writ petitions allowed.

2011)
Union of India Appellant Vs. Hassan Ali Khan & another

Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 section 4
the allegation against the Respondent No.1 for having committed an
offence punishable under the High Court granted BAIL to the
Respondent No.1 hence, the appeal no attempt on the part of the
Respondent No.1 to disclose the source of the large sums of money
handled by him the total income of the Respondent No.1 for the
assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 has been assessed at
Rs.110,412,68,85,303/- by the Income Tax Department and the
Respondent No.1 had not been able to establish that the same were
neither the proceeds of crime nor untainted property which the
Respondent No.1 had procured three different passports in his name,
after his original passport was directed to be deposited, lends support
to the apprehension that, if released on BAIL, the Respondent No.1 may
abscond the order of the High Court set aside BAIL granted to the
respondent No.1 cancelled appeal allowed.

2005 with Criminal Appeal No.1222 of 2005)
Pancho with Pratham Appellant Vs. State of Haryana
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs.
Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302 r/w section 34,
section 392 conviction and sentence under in challenge the fact
not disputed that deceased Kartar Singh died on account of firearm
injuries. A-1 confessed before the PW-4 that A2-Pancho had shot dead
deceased Kartar Singh with country made pistol whether extrajudicial confession of A1-Pratham inspires confidence and whether there
are other cogent circumstances on record, to support it A1-Pratham
is stated to have made a confession about 5 months after the incident
the Supreme Court viewed that even assuming that the recovery is
proved in the absence of any other cogent evidence it is not sufficient to
establish that A2-Pancho caused the fatal firearm injury to deceased
Kartar Singh with the said pistol no other evidence of sterling quality
on record establishing the involvement of A-2, thus, he cannot be
convicted on the basis of the alleged extra-judicial confession of the coaccused A1-Pratham impugned judgment and order of the lower
Courts set aside BAIL bonds of A-1 and A-2 discharged appeals
disposed.

2011 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3841 of 2011)
D. Ethiraj Appellant(s) Vs. Secretary to Govt. & others

Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 366 r/w section
109 conviction and sentence under remission of sentence
applied for the High Court refused to consider the same on the
ground that on the date of issuance of notification for remission of
sentence, the petitioner was on BAIL hence, the appeal the
Supreme Court viewed that the appellant is entitled to get his case of
remission of sentence considered in accordance with the notification
since he admittedly suffered more than six months of imprisonment
prior to the date of judgment rendered by the High Court appeal
allowed.

Abdul Rehman & others Appellant(s) Vs. K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 195 IPC,
1860 sections 211, 500, 109, 114 r/w section 34 whether the
grant of BAIL to the respondent in connection with the FIR registered
against him would attract the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C to
determine the High Court held that the complaint in question is not
barred and that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, committed no error
of law or jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offence punishable
under Sections 211 and 500 IPC hence, the appeals the BAIL
proceedings conducted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Karkardooma, Delhi, in connection with the case which the appellants
had lodged with CAW Cell were judicial proceedings and the offence
punishable under Section 211 IPC alleged to have been committed by
the appellants related to the said proceedings, therefore, the bar
contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. clearly attracted to the complaint
filed by the respondent the Supreme Court held that so long as the
proceedings are pending before the competent Court it would neither be
just nor proper nor even legally permissible to allow parallel
proceedings for prosecution of the appellants for the alleged
commission of offence punishable under Section 211 IPC the orders
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and that passed by the High
Court set aside and the complaint filed by the respondent directed to be
transferred to the Court dealing with the charge sheet filed against the
respondent appeals allowed.
2011, Criminal Appeal No. 2180 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 2181 of
2011, Criminal Appeal No. 2182 of 2011)
Sanjay Chandra Appellant with Gautam Doshi Appellant with
Hari Nair Appellant withSurendra Pipara Appellant Vs. CBI
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice H. L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 420-B, 468, 471,
109 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 section 13(2) r/w section
13(i)(d) the appellants facing trial in respect of the offences under
BAIL applications filed rejection of in challenge refusal of BAIL is
a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution the Supreme Court held that though the
offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of
alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself not deter from
enlarging the appellants on BAIL when there is no serious contention of
the respondent that the accused, if released on BAIL, would interfere
with the trial or tamper with evidence no reason to detain the
accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation
and filing of the charge-sheet the appellants are directed to release
on BAIL pending trial on stringent conditions appeals disposed.
2011 SCCL.COM 789(Case/Appeal No: SLP (Crl) No(s). 4010 of

2011)
Jetha Bhaya Odedara Petitioner(s) Vs. Ganga Maldebhai
Odedara & Anr. Respondent(s), decided on 12/16/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Bail order cancellation of petition filed for IPC,
1860 sections 302, 307, 324, 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 507 (2)
Arms Act section 25(1) Bombay Police Act section 135 the
respondent and his companion charged for commission of the offences
under the BAIL order was passed nearly two years back and it is not
the case of the complainant that the respondent has during this period
either tried to tamper with the evidence or committed any other act
that may affect the fairness of the trial the order granting BAIL to the
respondent not interfered special leave petition dismissed.

2012)
Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima Appellant(s) Vs. State of Manipur &
Ors Respondent(s), decided on 1/4/2012.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: National Security Act, 1980 detention order passed
against the appellant's husband under the provisions of in challenge
the grounds of detention do not disclose any material which was

before the detaining authority, other than the fact that there was every
likelihood of detenue being released on BAIL in connection with the
cases in respect of which he had been arrested, to support the order of
detention the FIRs in respect of which the Appellant's husband had
been arrested relate to the years 1994, 1995 and 1998 respectively,
whereas the order of detention passed against him almost after 12
years. There is no live link between the earlier incidents and the
incident in respect of which the detention order had been passed
impugned detention order quashed appeal allowed.

Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors Respondent(s), decided on 1/4/2012.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act,
1981 detention order under legality of in challenge the order
releasing the detenu on BAIL in the crime registered on August 14,
2010 and the order relaxing the BAIL condition were passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, much before the issuance of detention nonplacing and non-consideration of the material as vital as the BAIL order
vitiated the subjective decision of the detaining authority detention
order set aside appeal allowed.

2006)
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali Appellant(s) Vs. The State (Govt. of
NCT) Delhi Respondent(s), decided on 1/11/2012.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad.
Subject Index: IPC, 1860 sections 302/307 Explosives
Substances Act, 1908 section 3 conviction and sentence of the
appellant to death for offences under appeal filed on the ground
that he was not given a fair and impartial trial and was denied the right
of a counsel the appellant was initially assisted by a learned counsel
employed by the learned Sessions Judge. However, in the mid way, the
learned counsel disappeared before conclusion of the trial. The Court
did not appoint any counsel to defend the accused materials on
record showed that the examination of witnesses from 1 to 56 was done
when accused was not represented by an advocate and none of the 56
witnesses were cross-examined by the accused/appellant the
appellant/accused was not provided the assistance of a counsel in a
substantial and meaningful sense impugned conviction and sentence
order set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court for fresh
disposal in accordance with law appeal allowed. (H.L.Dattu J.) IPC,

1860 sections 302/307 Explosive Substances Act, 1908 section
3 conviction and sentence order under against the appellant in
challenge on the ground that he was not given a fair trial whether it
is a fit case in which direction be given for the de novo trial of the
appellant after giving him the assistance of a counsel the Supreme
Court found that for an occurrence of 1997, the appellant was arrested
in 1998 and since then he is in judicial custody, therefore, opined that
after such a distance of time it shall be travesty of justice to direct for
the appellant's de novo trial conviction order of the appellant set
aside and directed that he be deported to his country in accordance
with law appeal allowed. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.) ORDER :- In
view of the difference of opinion with regard to the issue, the appeal
placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for being assigned to
appropriate Bench.

Alister Anthony Pareira Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 304 Part II, 338
and 337 conviction and sentence of the accused appellant for
commission of the offences under the appellant while driving the car
(corolla) rashly and negligently rammed the car over the pavement;
caused death of seven persons and injuries to eight persons. On his
medical examination, he was found to have 0.112% w/v liquor (ethyl
alcohol) in his blood whether it is permissible to try and convict a
person for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and the
offence punishable under Section 338 IPC for a single act of the same
transaction? whether by not charging the appellant of 'drunken
condition' and not putting to him the entire incriminting evidence let in
by the prosecution, the trial and conviction of the appellant got
affected? whether prosecution evidence establishes beyond
reasonable doubt the commission of the offences by the appellant under
Section 304 Part II, IPC, Section 338 IPC and Section 337 IPC? to
consider the two charges under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section
338 IPC can legally co-exist in a case of single rash or negligent act
where a rash or negligent act is done with the knowledge of likelihood
of its dangerous consequences the appellant was fully aware of the
prosecution evidence relating to his rash and negligent driving in the
drunken condition thus by not putting to the appellant expressly the CA
report (Ex. 49) and the evidence of PW 1, no prejudice can be said to
have been caused to the appellant the evidence and materials on
record prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant can be
attributed with knowledge that his act of driving the vehicle at a high
speed in the rash or negligent manner was dangerous enough and he
knew that one result would very likely be that people who were asleep
on the pavement may be hit, should the vehicle go out of control the
essential ingredients of sections 304 Part - II, 338 and 337 were
successfully established by the prosecution againt the appellant
appeals dismissed.

2012)
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Appellant(s) Vs. State of U.P. &
Another Respondent(s), decided on 1/16/2012.
Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302, 307
offences under order of the High Court granting BAIL to the
respondent No.2/accused in challenge whether the High Court was
justified in enlarging the second respondent on BAIL after imposing
certain conditions the second respondent is a sitting Member of
Parliament facing several criminal cases and most of the cases ended in
acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial the Supreme
Court viewed that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the
claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected the second
respondent was in jail since 24.08.2009, the trial commenced by
examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and State
assured that trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a
reasonable time held no interference with the order of the High Court
appeal dismissed.
2012 SCCL.COM 47(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 654 of

2012)
Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Appellant(s) Vs. State of Gujarat &
Others Respondent(s), decided on 1/18/2012.
Subject Index: Caste Certificate benefit of the tribal certificate has
been taken away from the appellant on the sole ground that he was the
son of a Kshatriya father hence, the appeal what would be the
status of a person, one of whose parents belongs to the scheduled
castes/scheduled tribes and the other does not come from scheduled
castes/scheduled tribes and what would be the entitlement of a person
from such parents to the benefits of affirmative action sanctioned by
the Constitution the Supreme Court viewed that in an inter-caste
marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the
determination of the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of
fact to be decided on the basis of the facts adduced in each case. It is
open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she
was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled
caste/scheduled tribe the orders passed by the High Court and the
Scrutiny Committee are set aside and the case remitted to the Scrutiny
Committee for decision afresh appeal allowed.

2012)
Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Appellant(s) Vs. C.B.I. & Another
Subject Index: Bail application rejection of in appeal Indian
Penal Code, 1860 sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 120B charge-sheet filed for commission of the offences punishable under
whether the appellant made out a case for regular BAIL or whether
the High Court is justified in dismissing his BAIL application to
consider the appellant along with the others charged with economic
offences of huge magnitude the appellant was granted temporary
BAIL on three occasions on medical ground the assurance of the ASG
for completion of the case within three months was not fulfilled due to
various reasons the Supreme Court held that though the charge
sheet and additional charge sheet were submitted to the Court, the
same have not been approved and framed, therefore, the presence of
the appellant in custody may not be necessary for further investigation
the appellant is ordered to be released on BAIL on fulfilling conditions
appeal disposed.

Rattiram & Others Appellant(s) Vs. State of M.P. Th. Insp. of
Police Respondent(s), decided on 2/17/2012.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra.
cognizance of offence by the Court of Session Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the effect
and impact of not committing an accused in terms of Section 193 of the
Code in cases where charge-sheet is filed under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Act, 1989 and cognizance is directly taken by the Special Judge under
the Act in reference whether non-compliance of the interdict as
envisaged and engrafted under Section 193 of the Code nullifies the
final verdict after the trial and warrants its total extinction resulting in
retrial, or it is incumbent on the part of the convict to exposit and
satisfy that such guillotining of the interdict has occasioned in `failure
of justice' or culminated in causation of prejudice to him for the purpose
of declaring that the trial was vitiated to consider in the committal
proceedings in praesenti, the magistrate is only required to see whether
the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session the Supreme

Court opined that because of the restricted role assigned to the
Magistrate at the stage of commitment under the new Code, the noncompliance of the same and raising of any objection in that regard after
conviction attracts the applicability of the principle of `failure of justice'
and the convict-appellant becomes obliged in law to satisfy the
appellate court that he has been prejudiced and deprived of a fair trial
or there has been miscarriage of justice. Unless the same is
established, setting aside of conviction as a natural corollary or direction
for retrial as the third step of the syllogism solely on the said foundation
would be an anathema to justice reference answered.

2012)
Susanta Ghosh Appellant(s) Vs. State of West Bengal
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble
448, 326, 307, 302, 501, 201 and 120-B remanding of the appellant
to jail custody for the offences under CrPC, 1973 section 439
BAIL application filed under there is no mention of the Appellant's
name or alleged role in the incident the Appellant was arrested in
connection with a FIR lodged 9 years after the incident. During all these
years there is no allegation that the Appellant has interfered with the
investigation. Furthermore, in connection with this case he was also
granted anticipatory BAIL and nothing to indicate that such privilege
was either abused or misused by the Appellant the Supreme Court
held that tampering with the evidence or the investigation is no longer
relevant since charge-sheet has already been filed in the case and the
appellant being a sitting MLA, likelihood of his absconsion is a remote
possibility the Appellant is directed to be released on BAIL to the
satisfaction of the trial Court appeal allowed.
2012 SCCL.COM 119(Case/Appeal No: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 45

of 2012 with T.P. (Crl.) No. 46 of 2012)
Rajesh Talwar Petitioner(s) Vs. C.B.I. & others Respondent(s),
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr.
transfer petitions filed under for the transfer of Special Case No.
01/2011 pending before the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate
(CBI) Ghaziabad, U.P., to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi/New
Delhi on the grounds of convenience, personal security and that the
petitioners were not likely to get justice, as the Ghaziabad Court was
proceeding with the matter with a pre-determined mind the Supreme

Court found that the basis on which the petitioners are seeking transfer
of proceedings are speculative and unjustified apprehensions based
interalia on vague and non-specific allegations transfer petitions
dismissed.

of 2007)
Govindaraju@Govinda Appellant(s) Vs. State by Sriramapuram
P.S. & another Respondent(s), decided on 3/15/2012.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302 punishment
of murder conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of
the offence under whether the High Court was justified in over
turning the judgment of acquittal in favour of the appellant passed by
the Trial court on merits of the case to consider the trial Court
noticed a number of weaknesses in the case of the prosecution,
including the evidence of PW1 particularly when there was no evidence
to corroborate even his statement all the recovery witnesses turned
hostile and bluntly denied their presence during the recovery of knives.
Even the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution
no person from the FSL, was examined thus, the report of the FSL
has been of no help to the prosecution the judgment of the High
Court has not brought out as to how the trial court's judgment was
perverse in law or was based on conjectures and surmises in
contradistinction to facts proved by evidence on record the case of
the prosecution suffered from proven improbabilities, infirmities,
contradictions and the statement of the sole witness, the Police Officer,
PW1, is not reliable and worthy of credence conviction order set aside
appeal allowed acquittal.

Jai Prakash Singh Appellant(s) Vs. State of Bihar & another etc.
anticipatory BAIL to the respondents under appeals against IPC,
1860 sections 302/34 FIR registered against the respondents for
commission of the offences under the FIR had been lodged promptly
within a period of two hours from the time of incident the deceased
received multiple abrasions and 5 gun shot injuries, thus, it was not a
fit case to enlarge the accused on anticipatory BAIL the High Court
very lightly brushed aside the fact that FIR had been lodged
spontaneously and further did not record any reason as how the prerequisite conditions incorporated in the statutory provision itself stood
fulfilled the order dehors the grounds provided in Section 438 Cr.P.C.
itself suffers from non-application of mind impugned order passed by
the High Court set aside and the anticipatory BAIL granted to the
respondents is cancelled appeals disposed.

of 2012)
Shobhan Singh Khanka Appellant(s) Vs. State of Jharkhand
petition filed under for anticipatory BAIL IPC, 1860 Sections
420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 469, 471, 477A, 120-B, 109 and 201
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(c)
(d) FIR lodged against the appellant, Chairman and other Members
of the JPSC on the allegations that they provided highest marks to the
candidates whom they desire to be selected or appointed by giving
undue favour and that the appellant is responsible for cutting,
manipulation, interpolation in the marks sheet of the Interview Board in
order to provide benefit to the candidates for selection and appointment
the High Court dismissed his petition for anticipatory BAIL hence,
the appeal the Supreme Court held that considering the limited
allegation in the FIR and other details, appellant's academic
qualifications including the fact that he does not belong to the State of
Jharkhand and has no relatives and is not a Member of the JPSC, acted
as Expert No.1 only for a short period, the appellant has made out a
case for anticipatory BAIL order of the High Court set aside
appellant released on BAIL appeal allowed.
2012 SCCL.COM 180(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s).3550 of

2012)
Vijay Singh Appellant(s) Vs. State of U.P. & others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice B. S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 withholding integrity the
disciplinary authority, without disclosing as under what circumstances
not recording the past criminal history of the accused involved in the
case had prejudiced the cause of the prosecution in a BAILable offence,
found that the charge framed against the appellant stood proved,
therefore, the integrity certificate for the year 2010 was directed to be
withheld whether the disciplinary authority can impose punishment
not prescribed under statutory rules after holding disciplinary

proceedings no the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority
withholding the integrity certificate as a punishment for delinquency is
without jurisdiction, not being provided under the Rules 1991, since the
same could not be termed as punishment under the Rules. Thus, the
order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory rules is
a nullity and cannot be enforced against the appellant the impugned
order withholding integrity certificate for the year 2010 and all
subsequent orders quashed appeal allowed.

and 751/of 2012)
Rashmi Rekha Thatoi & another Appellant(s) Vs. State of Orissa
& others Respondent(s), decided on 5/4/2012.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra.
Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 section 438
direction for grant of BAIL to person apprehending arrest whether the
High Court, despite the value attached to the concept of liberty, could
afford to vaporise the statutory mandate enshrined under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to consider the legality of the
proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438
of the Code. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing
with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to
interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done
sunder Section 438 of the Code the court cannot issue a blanket
order restraining arrest and can only issue an interim order conforming
to the requirement of the section and suitable conditions held that
when the High Court expressed the view that it is not inclined to grant
anticipatory BAIL to the accused petitioners it could not have issued
such a direction which would tantamount to conferment of benefit by
which the accused would be in a position to avoid arrest the direction
to admit the accused persons to BAIL on their surrendering has no
sanction in law and, creates a dent in the sacrosanctity of law, thus, set
aside appeals disposed.

2011)
Dinbandhu Appellant Vs. State of Bihar & another Respondents,
Subject Index: Validity of document in complaint case at the stage
of grant of BAIL Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 192, 193, 196,
200, 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 complaint filed against the
appellant under the order of the High Court granting anticipatory
BAIL to the appellant subject to condition that in a partition suit that

was pending between the parties, neither the accused nor the informant
would use a certain document (a family arrangement-cum-partition
deed) as evidence in challenge the final judge of the genuineness,
correctness and validity of a document used as evidence in a suit is the
Civil Court. Hence, it is for the court dealing with the partition suit
between the parties to examine and test the genuineness of the
Shartnama produced by the appellant in support of his case
genuineness and validity of the document can hardly be tested in the
complaint case and certainly not at the stage of grant of BAIL to the
accused, thus, it was not open to the High Court to impose the
condition that amounts to pre-judging the issue the Supreme Court
held that the condition imposed by the High Court for grant of
anticipatory BAIL to the appellant is untenable and the complainant not
bound by that condition criminal appeal allowed.

2012)
Huidrom Konungjao Singh Appellant Vs. State of Manipur &
Justice Dipak Misra.
Subject Index: National Security Act, 1980 section 3(2)
detention order passed under IPC, 1860 section 302 Arms Act,
1959 section 25(1-C) arrest of the appellant's son for commission
of the offences under the order passed by the High Court dismissing
the Habeas Corpus petition challenging the order of detention of
appellants son passed by the District Magistrate, under Section 3(2)
in challenge the District Magistrate, Imphal West passed the
detention order on various grounds with an apprehension that as in
similar cases, the accused involved therein had been enlarged on BAIL
the detenu in this case would also be released on BAIL and he would
indulge in activities prejudicial to public order the Supreme Court
held that the impugned order of detention is based on mere ipse dixit
statement in the grounds of detention and cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law detention order quashed appeal allowed.
2012 SCCL.COM 265(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (Crl.) No. 85

of 2012 In Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2012)
Nupur Talwar Petitioner Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 sections 190, 204
the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.
P.C. and issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner
and her husband for the offence of murder of their daughter and their
domestic servant in challenge once the order of the Magistrate
taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner and her
husband was sustained, there is no scope for granting the relief of
further investigation for the purpose of finding out whether someone
other than the petitioner and her husband had committed the offences
in respect of the deceased persons review petition dismissed.-- (A.K.
Patnaik, J.) B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 sections 190, 204
order taking cognizance and/or issuing process against the petitioner
and her husband in challenge the Magistrate having examined the
statements recorded during the course of investigation under Sections
161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also, the documents
and other materials collected during the process of investigation, was
fully justified in recording the basis on which, having taken cognizance,
it was decided to issue process. The Magistrates order being speaking,
cannot be stated to have occasioned failure of justice the Supreme
Court held that it is not essential for the concerned Magistrate to record
reasons or to pass a speaking order demonstrating the basis of the
satisfaction, leading to issuance of process. Despite the same, the
Magistrate while issuing process had passed a detailed reasoned order.
The order brings out the basis of the Magistrates satisfaction review
petition dismissed. -- (J.S. Khehar, J.)

2012)
Lavesh Appellant(s) Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Respondent(s) ,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
whether the appellant, who is elder brother of the husband of the
deceased, has made out a case for anticipatory BAIL under to
consider the deceased allegedly committed suicide after one year and
eight months of marriage the statements of various persons including
parents of the deceased and neighbours clearly show that all the family
members of the husband of the deceased including the appellant
subjected the deceased to cruelty by demanding sizeable amount in
order to settle the payment of Rs.5 lakhs of the allotted DDA flat.
Further, the materials on record established that the appellant was not
available for interrogation and investigation and declared as
absconder the Supreme Court held that the conduct of the
appellant does not entitle him to anticipatory BAIL as prescribed in
Section 438 of the Code appeal dismissed.

No(s).6432 of 2012)
Vilas Pandurang Pawar & another Petitioner(s) Vs. State of

Maharashtra & others Respondent(s) , decided on 9/10/2012.
Subject Index: Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 section 18 CrPC, 1973
section 438 whether an accused charged with various offences under
the IPC along with the provisions of the SC/ST Act is entitled for
anticipatory BAIL under Section 438 of the CrPC to consider the
scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code
is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory BAIL.
When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the
persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
and a bar has been imposed in granting BAIL under Section 438 of the
Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by
elaborate discussion on the evidence the Supreme Court viewed that
the SC/STs Act is applicable to the case, thus, the petitioners are not
entitled to anticipatory BAIL under Section 438 of the Code SLP
dismissed.

of 2012)
Maruti Nivrutti Navale Appellant(s) Vs. State of Maharashtra &
another Respondent(s) , decided on 9/7/2012.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 438 the
order of the High Court dismissing the application for anticipatory BAIL
filed by the appellant in challenge IPC,1860 sections 420, 465,
468, 471 r/w section 34 complaint filed against the appellant for the
offences under the appellant made a forgery pertaining to the
granting of lease for 87 years without the consent of the Complainant
and also made a forgery by making additions/alterations in the original
draft agreement for lease which was prepared at the time of executing
the MoU. Even in the notarized document, forgery was committed by
the appellant the Supreme Court viewed that in order to bring out all
the material information and documents which were alleged to have
been forged and fabricated, custodial interrogation is required the
order of rejection of the claim for anticipatory BAIL, affirmed appeal
dismissed.

No(s).8989 of 2010 with SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6138 of 2006, 5203 and 259 of
2011, 5921, 7148 and 6324 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 21072125 of 2011)
Gian Singh Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Another
Respondents , decided on 9/24/2012.

Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti
Mukhopadhaya.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 sections 320 and
482 the question is with regard to the inherent power of the High
Court in quashing the criminal proceedings against an offender who has
settled his dispute with the victim of the crime but the crime in which
he is allegedly involved is not compoundable under Section 320 of the
Code the power of compounding of offences given to a court under
Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Before exercise of such inherent power, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude
under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the
settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at
all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly
bear civil flavour or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes
between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have
not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or
criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such
settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted
and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty
and ends of justice shall be defeated reference answered.

of 2012)
Ash Mohammad ... Appellant Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu &
another ... Respondents , decided on 9/20/2012.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 365/506 the
order of the High Court granting BAIL to the accused-respondent in
respect of offence under in challenge the accused was a historysheeter and was involved in 52 cases. He was the pivotal force in
getting the kidnapping done of the victim the victim had been
kidnapped under threat, confined and abused because the victim
showed some courage to speak against the accused the Supreme
Court opined that the social concern deserves to be given priority over
lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused order passed by the
High Court set aside annulment of the order of grant of BAIL
appeal allowed.

of 2012 with Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 44 of 2011)
Central Bureau of Investigation Appellant Vs. Amitbhai Anil
Chandra Shah and Another Respondents , decided on
9/27/2012.
Subject Index: Cancellation of BAIL and transfer of case the case of
the CBI for cancelling the BAIL granted to Amitbhai Shah (A-16/R-1) in
Sohrabuddin case and transferring that case for trial outside Gujarat
for consideration the Supreme Court held that the grant of BAIL to
Amitbhai Shah in Sohrabuddin case shall be no consideration for grant
of BAIL to the other accused in that case and in case Amitbhai Shah
commits any breach of the conditions of the BAIL bond or the
undertaking given to the court, as directed above, it will be open to the
CBI to move the trial court for cancellation of his BAIL the material
facts and circumstances as also having regard to the past experience in
the Sohrabuddin matter, the Supreme Court found that in order to
preserve the integrity of the trial it is necessary to shift it outside the
State, therefore, the Sohrabuddin case stood transferred to the Court of
CBI, Bombay appeal dismissed but the transfer petition allowed.
2012 SCCL.COM 487(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).15951596 of 2012 With Crl. M.P. Nos. 18203-18204 of 2012 in Criminal
Appeal Nos.1597-1598 of 2012 With Crl. M.P. No. 19162 of 2012 in
Criminal Appeal No.1599 of 2012 With Crl.M.P. No. 19175 of 2012 in
Criminal Appeal No.1600 of 2012)
Younus Bin Omer Yafai @ Younus Bhai & others Appellants Vs.
State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 10/5/2012.
307 r/w sections 149 and 120 Indian Arms Act section 27(1)
FIR registered against 15 accused persons the order of the High
Court granting BAIL to accused in challenge the allegation as
appeared in the chargesheet showed that in broad day light an elected
representative of the people, was attacked, without any fear of the
repercussions which resulted in serious injuries to him the accused
nos.1 to 6 and 11 are the main accused and the video clipping recorded
by the listed witness no.22 noticed the presence and participation of
accused nos.2,3,4,5,7 and 14. Therefore, prima facie, the participation
of these accused in the occurrence cannot be seriously doubted, unless
of course, during the course of evidence, the video clipping is shown to
the doctored the order of the High Court extending the benefit of
BAIL to accused nos.2,3,5,7 and 14 set aside. Also, the main accused
nos.1,6 and 11 disentitled to the benefit of BAIL appeals disposed.
2012 SCCL.COM 504(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).866 of

2008)
Baby Devassy Chully @ Bobby Appellant(s) Vs. Union of India &
others Respondent(s) , decided on 10/12/2012.
Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 section 3(1) detention order passed
under against the appellant with a view to prevent him from abetting
the smuggling of goods in future seizure of diesel oil weighing about
770 MTs of foreign origin without any legal documents for import the
grounds of detention clearly mention the details about the BAIL order
and non-availing of the same by the appellant on the date of detention
order. The Detaining Authority was conscious of all relevant aspects and
passed the impugned order of detention the Supreme Court held that
looking to the various grounds/details/materials adverted to in the
impugned order it cannot be claimed that there was no compelling
necessity to pass the order of detention. It is the subjective satisfaction
of the Detaining Authority whether the order of detention is to be
invoked or not appeal dismissed.

of 2012)
Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Appellant Vs. State of Gujarat
and another Respondents , decided on 10/12/2012.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 302, 201 and
120-B Arms Act, 1959 sections 25(1)(b) and 27 order of
rejection of prayer for BAIL for offences punishable under in
challenge the High Court directed the C.B.I. to conduct a
comprehensive investigation the Supreme Court opined that as there
is a direction for fresh investigation, it should be inapposite to enlarge
the appellant on BAIL, however, held that in case the order for
reinvestigation is annulled, it would be open for the appellant to file a
fresh application for BAIL before the competent Court appeal
disposed.

of 2006 with Criminal Appeal No. 1397 of 2003 SLP (Crl.) No. 1451 of
2003 R.P. (Criminal) No. 390 of 2010 in SLP(Crl.) No. 2542 of 2010
SLP(Crl.) No. 8768 of 2011 SLP(Crl.) No. 8855 of 2011 Criminal Appeal
No. 654 of 2002 SLP (Crl.) No. 616 of 2012 )
Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Appellant Vs. State of West
Bengal Respondent , decided on 10/10/2012.
Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.

Subject Index: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 and Rules, 2007 section 7A, Rule 12 claim of juvenility
when should a claim of juvenility be recognised and sent for
determination when it is raised for the first time in appeal or before this
Court or raised in trial and appeal but not pressed and then pressed for
the first time before this Court or even raised for the first time after
final disposal of the case in question a claim of juvenility may be
raised at any stage for the first time before this Court as well after final
disposal of the case. The delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot
be a ground for rejection of such claim, however, initial burden has to
be discharged by the person who claims juvenility the documents
viz., school leaving certificate, marksheet and the medical report were
treated sufficient for directing an inquiry and verification of the
appellants age. The plea of juvenility should be considered prima facie
on the touchstone of preponderance of probability reference
answered.

of 2012)
Md. Sahabuddin & another Appellants Vs. State of Assam
Respondent , decided on 10/5/2012.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 section 36A (4) whether
appellants entitled for BAIL under in question seizure of
pharmaceutical products the appellants had no documents in their
possession to disclose as to for what purpose such a huge quantity of
Schedule H drug containing narcotic substance was being transported
and thus, it cannot be simply presumed that such transportation was
for therapeutic practice the Supreme Court held that in the absence
of any valid explanation for effecting the transporation of a huge
quantity of the cough syrup which contained the narcotic substance of
codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed limit, the application for grant
of BAIL cannot be considered appeal dismissed.

of 2012)
Kanwar Singh Meena Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan & another
364 and 302 complaint registered against respondent No. 2 and five
others under for their involvement in the murder of appellant's
brother the order of the High Court releasing the accused on BAIL
in challenge the statements of Kuldip Prajapati and Rita appear to be

relevant as they prima facie indicate involvement of the accused in the
crime in question the High Court expressed no opinion as to why it
was releasing the accused on BAIL the order passed by the High
Court releasing the accused involved in a heinous crime on BAIL,
ignoring the relevant material, is legally not tenable impugned order
quashed and the police are directed to take accused in custody for trial
appeal disposed.
2012 SCCL.COM 528(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s).16951697 of 2012)

Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Appellant Vs. State, GNCTD & others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 extending
of remand of the accused in challenge the Appellant exercised his
right to statutory BAIL on the very same day on which his custody was
held to be illegal and such an application was left undecided by the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate till after the application filed by the
prosecution for extension of time to complete investigation was taken
up and orders were passed thereupon the Supreme Court viewed
that the Appellant acquired the right for grant of statutory BAIL when
his custody was held to be illegal by the Additional Sessions Judge since
his application for statutory BAIL was pending at the time when the
application for extension of time for continuing the investigation was
filed by the prosecution the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate extending the time of investigation and custody of the
accused for 90 days, with retrospective effect set aside and the
Appellant is directed to be released on BAIL appeal allowed.

of 2012)
Nazma Appellant Vs. Javed @ Anjum Respondent , decided on
10/19/2012.
Subject Index: Stay of arrest impugned order in challenge IPC,
1860 sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 Dowry Prohibition Act
sections 3 and 4 case registered against 1st respondent and his
family members under the High Court directed stay of arrest till the
conclusion of the investigation or submission of any report under
Section 173 CrPC and later it was ordered that the 1st respondent
should not be arrested until the conclusion of the trial the High Court
entertained a petition in a disposal of criminal writ petition and granted
reliefs, which is impermissible in law the Supreme Court held that
grant of BAIL or not to grant, is within the powers of the regular

Criminal Court and the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, not
justified in usurping their powers. Once the criminal writ petition has
been disposed of, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot
entertain review petitions or miscellaneous applications except for
carrying out typographical or clerical errors impugned order passed
by the High Court set aside appeal allowed.
2012 SCCL.COM 558(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition ( Crl.)

No. 3672 of 2012 with Criminal M.P. No. 11364 of 2012)
Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal Petitioner Vs. State of Gujarat &
another Respondents , decided on 11/6/2012.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: ORDER: CrPC, 1973 sections 173(2), 173(8) the
mere undertaking of a further investigation either by the Investigating
Officer on his own or upon the directions of the superior police officer or
pursuant to a direction by the concerned Magistrate to whom the report
is forwarded does not mean that the report submitted under Section
173(2) is abandoned or rejected. Notwithstanding the practice of the
CBI to register a fresh FIR, the investigation undertaken by the CBI is
in the nature of further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the CrPC
pursuant to the direction of this Court. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
section 167(2) rejection of petitioner's application for default BAIL
under chargesheet filed against the accused persons, 12 police
officers, including the Petitioner in the case that was alleged to be a
fake encounter the petitioner was under arrest in connection with the
first F.I.R. in which charge-sheet had been filed within the stipulated
period of 90 days, the benefit of default BAIL was not available to the
Petitioner the Supreme Court held that registering a "fresh FIR" by
CBI, does not lead to conclusion in law that the earlier report or the
material collected by the Gujarat Police (CID) on the basis of which they
filed the charge-sheet ceased to exist petition dismissed.

of 2012)
The State of Maharashtra Appellant(s) Vs. Vishwanath Maranna
Shetty Respondent(s) , decided on 10/19/2012.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
sections 2(1)(a), 4 and 21(4) whether the High Court was justified in
granting BAIL to the respondent, particularly, in the light of restriction
imposed under Section 21(4) of MCOCA to consider the
respondent was charged under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of
IPC and Section 3(1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of MCOCA the materials on
record indicated that the respondent was having an associations with

the overseas base wanted accused Nos.1 and 2 and handled the funds
of the syndicate, thus, the act of the respondent comes within the
definition of 'abet' under section 2(1)(a) of MCOCA the respondent
received illgotten money for the wanted accused-Vijay Shetty and,
therefore, ingredients of Section 4 of MCOCA attracted against him
the impugned order of the High Court granting BAIL ignoring the
mandatory requirements of Section 21(4) of MCOCA, set aside
appeal allowed.

Padmakar Tukaram Bhavnagare & another Appellant(s) Vs.
State of Maharashtra & another Respondent(s) , decided on
11/26/2012.
section 34 complaint registered against the appellants for
commission of the offences under the order of the ld. Single Judge
cancelling the anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants in
challenge the contents of the suicide notes prima facie appear to be
unnatural so far as accused No. 5, 6 and 7 are concerned as there is no
reference to them in the FIR the accused who are aged and rustic are
not influential persons holding high office who can bring pressure on the
investigating agency because they are protected by an order granting
anticipatory BAIL to them no material produced to show that the
accused interfered with the course of investigation by threatening the
complainant and the members of his family impugned orders set
aside anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants-accused 6 and 7
confirmed appeals disposed.

2009)
Akil @ Javed Appellant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Respondent ,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla.
section 34 punishment of murder, robbery with common intention
conviction and sentence of the appellant under in challenge the
prosecution examined PWs.17, 19, 20, 23 and 25 as eye-witnesses to
the crime and the narration of the event as described by those
witnesses was not in controversy. After robbing of the complainants
cash and jewels and other materials when the appellant attempted to
molest the complainant the deceased raised a protest at which point of
time the appellant shot him which snatched away the life of the
deceased PW-20 identified the appellant as one of the accused of the
crime recovery of articles from the possession of the appellant and
the co-accused, the presence of the appellant along with the co-accused
at the place of occurrence in the manner described by the witnesses,
namely, PWs.17, 19, 20, 23 and 25 was clinching enough to rope in the
appellant along with the co-accused in the commission of the crime as
alleged and found proved against both of them conviction order
upheld appeal dismissed.

2012)
Anju Chaudhary Appellant Vs. State of U.P. & another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 sections 154,156 (3)
whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same
incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence to
consider there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence.
However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or
different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude
that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first,
then a second FIR could be registered absence of specific provision
requiring grant of hearing to a suspect clearly supports the view that at
the stage of registration of a FIR or passing a direction under Section
156(3), the law does not contemplate grant of any hearing to a suspect
the Supreme Court held that where two incidents are of different
times with involvement of different persons, there is no commonality
and the purpose thereof different and they emerge from different
circumstances, it will not be possible for the Court to take a view that
they form part of the same transaction and therefore, there could be a
common FIR or subsequent FIR could not be permitted to be registered
or there could be common trial the judgment of the High Court
directing the Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the application of
respondent No.2, upheld appeal dismissed.

2012)
Ritesh Sinha Appellant Vs. State of U.P. & another Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr.
Subject Index: ORDER: Voiceprint identification whether in the
absence of any provision in the Code, can a Magistrate authorize the
investigating agency to record the voice sample of the person accused
of an offence case listed for hearing before a bench of three Judges

after obtaining the necessary direction from the Honourable the Chief
Justice of India. A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 53
Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 compulsion to give voice sample
whether, in case there is no express or evidently applicable provision
in law in that regard, should the court invent one by the process of
interpretation held no. (Aftab Alam, J.) B) Prisoners Act, 1920
section 5 CrPC, 1973 section 53 impugned order passed by the
High Court confirming the order passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saharanpur summoning the appellant to the court for
recording the sample of his voice in appeal whether Article 20(3)
of the Constitution of India, which protects a person accused of an
offence from being compelled to be a witness against himself, extends
to protecting such an accused from being compelled to give his voice
sample during the course of investigation into an offence whether
there is any provision in the Code, or in any other law under which a
Magistrate can authorize the investigating agency to record voice
sample of a person accused of an offence no the accused by giving
the voice sample merely gives identification data to the investigating
agency and is not subjected to any testimonial compulsion. Thus, taking
voice sample of an accused by the police during investigation is not hit
by Article 20(3) of the Constitution the voiceprint identification of
voice involves measurement of frequency and intensity of sound
waves, therefore, falls within the ambit of inclusive definition of the
term measurement appearing in the Prisoners Act the Supreme
Court based on the interpretation of relevant sections of the Prisoners
Act and Section 53 of the Code held that The Magistrate has an ancillary
or implied power under Section 53 of the Code to pass an order
permitting taking of voice sample to aid investigation appeal
dismissed. (Desai, J.)
2013 SCCL.COM 10(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl)

No.7532, 8286, 8730 and 8876 of 2012)
N. Kannapan and others Petitioners Vs. State (Union Territory)
Andaman & Nicobar Islands Respondent, decided on 1/3/2013.
Subject Index: Explosive Substances Act, 1908 arrest of the
petitioners on the ground of their involvement with the consignment of
unauthorized explosive substances BAIL Petition filed - there is prima
facie material, to establish the involvement of the petitioners in
activities violating the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
the Supreme Court held that releasing the petitioners from jail, when
the prosecution has not even commenced to examine the main
witnesses, could prove detrimental to the eventual outcome of the trial
the prayer for BAIL made by the petitioners declined.
2013 SCCL.COM 120(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 1389 of

2013)
Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi Appellant Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
Tr. Sec. Home and another Respondents, decided on 2/18/2013.
Subject Index: Denial of appointment of the appellant to the
post of a Civil Judge in Andhra Pradesh on the basis of a police report
impugned order in challenge non-inclusion of appellant's name in
the list of Jr. Civil Judges on the ground of her husband having close
links with CPI (Maoist) Party which is a prohibited organization there
is no material on record to show that CMS is a banned organization or
that the appellant is its member. Her husband maybe appeared as an
advocate for some persons associated with the CPI (Maoist) Party in
their BAIL applications, but, as an advocate, he was only discharging his
duties for the litigants who had sought his assistance no materials
produced on record to show that all relevant papers of the police
investigation were submitted to the High Court on the administrative
side, to enable it to take appropriate decision, after due consideration
thereof impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and the State
Government is directed to place the police report for the consideration
of the High Court on the administrative side with respect to the
appointment of appellant appeal disposed.

of 2013 with Crl. A. Nos. 335 & 336 of 2013)
Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar Appellant(s) Vs. State of Gujarat
272, 273, 201, 109, 114 and 120-B Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
sections 65(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), 66(1)(b), 67-1A, 72, 75, 81 and 83 denial
of BAIL to the appellant in case registered for the offences punishable
under in challenge the case relates to the hooch tragedy which
resulted into the death of 147 persons and serious physical injuries to
205 others after consuming spurious country-made liquor consisting
poisonous chemical Methyl Alcohol in different parts of the Ahmedabad
city, Gujarat, in July, 2009 the materials placed by the prosecution
prima face establish that the appellant was not a mere supplier of
spurious alcohol but he was involved in the criminal conspiracy of
manufacturing spurious liquor along with the main coaccused Vinod @
Dagri (A-1) and selling the same at various places through his men
the Supreme Court held that in view of the gravity of the offence, death
of a number of persons, injury to several others and the impact on the
society as a whole, the appellant is not at all entitled to BAIL at the
stage. Further, as A-2 supplied those poisonous chemicals despite
having full knowledge about its consequences, the respondent (A-2)
does not deserve liberty of remaining on BAIL appeals disposed.

(Criminal) No(s). 147 of 2013)
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain Petitioner Vs. State of
Maharashtra & another Respondents , decided on 2/13/2013.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr Altamas Kabir,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit
Sen.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 167 (2)
the power of the Magistrate to pass orders of remand even beyond the
period envisaged under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in issue the right of
an accused to be released on BAIL under Section 167(2) on the ground
that despite charge-sheet having been filed, no cognizance has been
taken on the basis thereof to consider evidence on record showed
that both the charge-sheet as also the supplementary charge-sheet
were filed within 90 days from the date of the Petitioner's arrest and
remand to police custody the Supreme Court held that the filing of
charge-sheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section
167(2)(a)(ii) and whether cognizance is taken or not is not material as
far as Section 167 Cr.P.C. is concerned. Merely because sanction had
not been obtained to prosecute the accused and to proceed to the stage
of Section 309 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that the accused is entitled to
grant of statutory BAIL, as envisaged in Section 167 Cr.P.C. sanction
is an enabling provision to prosecute, which is totally separate from the
concept of investigation which is concluded by the filing of the chargesheet Special Leave Petition dismissed.

149 of 2012 with W.P. (Crl.) No. 5 of 2013 )
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Petitioner(s) Vs. The Central
Bureau of Investigation & another Respondent(s), decided on
4/8/2013.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 Article 32 petition
filed under for quashing of second FIR filing of fresh FIR by the
CBI and chargesheet arraying petitioner as an accused in view of the
directions given by this Court to the Police Authorities of the Gujarat
State to handover the case relating to the death of Tulsiram Prajapati a material witness to the killings of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi
to the CBI in Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 79
in challenge the details mentioned in the chargesheet clearly show
that what the CBI conducted is mere further investigation and the
alleged killing of Tulsiram Prajapati was in continuance of and an
inseparable part of the conspiracy which commenced by abduction of
Sohrabuddin, Kausarbi and Tulsiram Prajapati and which culminated into

the final stage of alleged killing of Tulsiram Prajapati. Apart from the
consistent stand of the CBI, the chargesheet itself is conclusive to show
that the said chargesheet, in law and on facts, deserves to be treated
as supplementary chargesheet, in the first FIR the Supreme Court
viewed that filing of the second FIR and fresh charge sheet is violative
of fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution
since the same relate to alleged offence in respect of which an FIR had
already been filed and the court has taken cognizance the second FIR
filed by the CBI in contrary to various judicial pronouncements in
judgment dated 08.04.2011 by this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
115 of 2009, is quashed writ petition allowed.

of 2013)
Central Bureau of Investigation Appellant(s) Vs. V. Vijay Sai
Reddy Respondent(s), decided on 5/9/2013.
Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 437 grant
of regular BAIL under the order of the High Court dismissing the
petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking
cancellation of BAIL granted to the respondent in challenge a case
registered under Sections 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 and 477-A
of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy (A1), Member of Parliament and 73 others in which respondent was
arrayed as A-2 who was the founder Director of M/s Jagathi Publications
and was the Financial Advisor for the group of companies of Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy (A-1) the CBI initiated investigation and filed several
charge-sheets and three more charge-sheets are yet to be filed. A-2 is
an active member of the criminal conspiracy and though it is claimed
that respondent (A- 2) being only a C.A. had rendered his professional
advise, in the light of the various serious allegations against him, his
nexus with the main accused A-1, contacts with many investors all over
India prima facie it cannot be claimed that he acted only as a C.A. and
nothing more the orders of the Special Judge and the High Court
granting BAIL to A-2 set aside appeal allowed.

2013)
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Appellant(s) Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation Respondent(s), decided on 5/9/2013.
Justice M.Y. Eqbal .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 120B r/w sections
420, 409, 477-A Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 section 13(2)

r/w section 13(1)(c) & (d) case registered against the appellant (A1), Member of Parliament and 73 others for adopting several ingenious
ways to amass illegal wealth which resulted in great public injury
whether the appellant made out a case for BAIL to consider the
investigation is continuing in connection with 7 matters. Among 7
issues, the CBI completed the investigation with respect to M/s Dalmia
Cements and consequently filed the charge sheet in the Court of Special
Judge for CBI and the investigation is progressing with regard to other
6 issues also and the CBI is in the final stages of investigation with
respect to the following, viz., M/s India Cements, Penna Cements and
Investments through Kolkata companies the Supreme Court held that
the apprehension raised by the CBI cannot be lightly ignored
considering the claim that the appellant is the ultimate beneficiary and
the prime conspirator in huge monetary transactions, thus, the release
of the appellant (A-1) would hamper the investigation as it may
influence the witnesses and tamper with the material evidence no
relief of BAIL granted to the appellant appeal dismissed.

of 2013)
Nimmagadda Prasad Appellant(s) Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation Respondent(s), decided on 5/9/2013.
Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Bail petition dismissal of in challenge IPC,
1860 section 120B r/w sections 420, 409, 477-A Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(c) and (d)
case registered for the offences under while granting BAIL, the court
has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will
entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to
the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar
considerations the economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies
and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country
as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of
the country the Supreme Court opined that the appellant cannot be
released at the stage, however, the CBI is directed to complete the
investigation and file charge sheet(s) within a period of four months
appeal dismissed.

2013 with Crl. A. Nos. 731-737 of 2013 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4537-
4538 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 166 of 2013 in S.L.P. (Crl.)
No. 9853 of 2010)
Chandran Ratnaswami Appellant Vs. K.C. Palanisamy and
Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Joint Venture Agreement breach of acts of
oppression and mismanagement indulged by respondent No.1
complaint filed for initiating criminal action against the appellants for
the breach of contract and conspiracy dispute arising out of Joint
Venture Agreement has been fully and finally settled by the Company
Law Board and also the High Court and several directions were issued
for compliance including the return of the amount by respondent No.1
to the appellant and to become the sole owner of those companies
the complainant has manipulated and misused the process of Court so
as to deprive the appellants from their basic right to move free
anywhere inside or outside the country. Hence, allowing the criminal
proceedings arising out of alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement
specially when such disputes have been finally resolved by the Court of
competent jurisdiction to continue would be an abuse of the process of
the Court criminal proceedings quashed.

2007)
Engineering Export Promotion Council Appellant Vs. Usha
Anand and another Respondents , decided on 5/29/2013.
Justice Dipak Misra (Vacation Bench) .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 482 scope
of exercise of inherent jurisdiction under in question matter
related to refund of Rs.22 lakhs deposited by the respondent No.1's
husband with Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC), a
channelising industry under the Ministry of Commerce to avoid arrest
deposition of any sum as a condition of BAIL and a deposit with the
Agency on ones own even if to avoid arrest would stand on a different
footing. Thus, Section 482 of the Code could not have been exercised
as the action taken by the appellant, a channelising industry under the
Ministry of Commerce is absolutely an administrative action and,
therefore, can only be challenged by way of a writ petition and not by
seeking relief invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the
Code impugned order of the High Court set aside appeal allowed.

of 2003)
Jitendra Singh @ Babboo Singh & another Appellants Vs. State
of U.P. Respondent, decided on 7/10/2013.
Justice Madan B. Lokur .
Subject Index: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000
appellant convicted under section 304-B, 498-A Indian Penal Code,
1860 on the date of occurrence, he was above 16 years of age,
therefore not a juvenile under the 1986 Act with the repeal of the
aforesaid Act by the 2000 Act, which raised the age of juvenility to 18
years, the case of appellant fell within sec 20 of the 2000 Act, which
provides that if the court finds that the juvenile has committed an
offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence
in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board which shall
pass orders in respect of that juvenile, in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, as if it had been satisfied on inquiry, under this
Act that a juvenile has committed the offence therefore Court upon
finding the juvenile guilty would not pass an order of sentence against
him, instead he shall be referred to the Board for appropriate orders
under the 2000 Act accordingly, the matter is remanded to the
jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

2013 with Crl. A. Nos. 731-737 of 2013 and Civil Appeal Nos. 45374538 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 166 of 2013 in S.L.P. (Crl.)
No. 9853 of 2010)
Chandran Ratnaswami Appellant Vs. K.C. Palanisamy and
Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Joint Venture Agreement breach of acts of
oppression and mismanagement indulged by respondent No.1
complaint filed for initiating criminal action against the appellants for
the breach of contract and conspiracy dispute arising out of Joint
Venture Agreement has been fully and finally settled by the Company
Law Board and also the High Court and several directions were issued
for compliance including the return of the amount by respondent No.1
to the appellant and to become the sole owner of those companies
the complainant has manipulated and misused the process of Court so
as to deprive the appellants from their basic right to move free
anywhere inside or outside the country. Hence, allowing the criminal
proceedings arising out of alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement
specially when such disputes have been finally resolved by the Court of
competent jurisdiction to continue would be an abuse of the process of
the Court criminal proceedings quashed.

2013)
Vikas Appellant(s) Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent(s) ,

Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 319 to
consider non BAILable warrant issuance of in challenge
power to issue non-bailable warrant under Section 319 being
discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and
caution unless an accused is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence
or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable
warrants should be avoided court in all circumstances in complaint
cases at the first instance should first prefer issuing summons or
BAILable warrant failing which a non-bailable warrant should be issued
orders passed by the Trial Court whereby non-bailable warrant was
issued against the appellant which was confirmed by the High Court set
aside appeal disposed.

2013)
Sumit Mehta Appellant Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi Respondent ,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice
Ranjana Prakash Desai .
whether the condition of depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in
fixed deposit for anticipatory BAIL is sustainable in law and whether
such condition is outside the purview of Section 438 of the Code? to
consider the words any condition used in the aforesaid provision
should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a Court of law
to impose any condition that it chooses to impose, therefore any
condition, which has no reference to the fairness or propriety of the
investigation or trial, cannot be countenanced as permissible under the
law facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme
condition to be imposed direction relating to deposit of FDR in the
name of the complainant set aside, while order granting anticipatory
BAIL retained appeal disposed.
2013 SCCL.COM 496(Case/Appeal No: Crl. M.P. Nos. 17570 & 17571
of 2013 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7375 & 9788 of 2012)
State of Andhra Pradesh through I.G. National Investigation
Agency Petitioner and Sadhwi Pragya Singh Thakur Applicant
Vs. Md. Hussain @ Saleem Respondent and National
Investigation Agency Respondent , decided on 9/13/2013.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice J. Chelameswar .
Subject Index: National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 sections 21
(2) and (4) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999

section 21 (4) whether section 21 (2) of NIA Act applies to an appeal
from an order of the Special Court refusing BAIL whether BAIL
matters pertaining offences under MCOCA shall be governed by Section
21 of the MCOC Act and not by Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008 to
consider an appeal from an order of the Special Court under NIA Act,
refusing or granting BAIL shall lie only to a bench of two Judges of the
High Court since the applicant is being prosecuted for the offences
under the MCOC Act as well as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, such offences are triable only by Special Court, and therefore
application for BAIL in such matters will have to be made before the
Special Court under the NIA Act, and shall not lie before the High Court
application for BAIL filed by the applicant not maintainable before the
High Court petitions dismissed.
2013 SCCL.COM 596(Case/Appeal No: Criminal M.P. No. 853 of

2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2011)
Nagoor Pichai @ Badusha Petitioner Vs. State Tr. Sub-Inspector
of Police Respondent, decided on 9/19/2013.
Justice Vikramjit Sen.
Subject Index: Borstal Schools Act section 2(1) Juvenile Justice
Act, 2000 section 8 Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302
conviction of the petitioner of the offence under BAIL petition on
the date of his conviction the Petitioner was over 21 years old, and
therefore not a juvenile, provisions of Borstal Schools Act not
applicable since the Act applies to a person who at the time of such
conviction is not less than 16 in the case of a boy and not less than 18
in the case of a girl, but not more than 21 years of age in either case
being an adult it would not have been advisable for him to be detained
in a Borstal School as he may detrimentally influence younger persons
petition dismissed.

2012)
Bharati Tamang Petitioner Vs. Union of India & others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .
Subject Index: Constitution of India Article 32 Petition under
petitioner, was the widow of late Madan Tamang who was the President
of a political party called Akhil Bhartiya Gorkha League was brutally
murdered on the morning of 21st May, 2010 under the gaze of general
public, police and security personnel by the supporters of rival party
called Gorkha Jan Mukti Morcha and that after the brutal attack on the
deceased Madan Tamang he was rushed to a nearby hospital where he
was pronounced dead. Alleging that the whole investigation which was
initially held by the State police and thereafter by the CID and later by
the CBI, was faulty in every respect by issuing appropriate directions
in this writ petition and by monitoring the same the grievances
expressed by the petitioner can be duly redressed and the interest of
the public at large can be duly safeguarded directions issued.

2013)
Tofan Singh Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent ,
Justice A.K. Sikri.
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 section 8(c) read with section 29
conviction under sections 42, 53 and 67 the matter needs to be
referred to a larger Bench for re-consideration of the issue as to
whether the officer investigating the matter under NDPS Act would
qualify as police officer or not whether the statement recorded by the
investigating officer under Section 67 of the Act can be treated as
confessional statement or not, even if the officer is not treated as police
officer also needs to be referred to the larger Bench, inasmuch as it is
intermixed with a facet of the 1st issue as to whether such a statement
is to be treated as statement under Section 161 of the Code or it
partakes the character of statement under Section 164 of the Code
as against the sentence of 10 years awarded to the appellant he has
already undergone more than 9 years of sentence a fit case to
suspend further sentence till the disposal of this appeal by the larger
Bench.

2013)
Surya Baksh Singh Appellant Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Justice Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: Appeal statutory right the rampant manipulation
and misuse of the statutory right to appeal by an ever increasing
number of convicts who take recourse to this remedy with the objective
of defeating the ends of justice by obtaining orders of BAIL or
exemption from surrender, and thereupon escape beyond the reach of
the law. Jural compulsions now dictate that this species of appeals
should be consciously dismissed on the ground of occasioning a gross
abuse of the judicial process and an annihilation of justice. The need to
punish every transgressor of the law is ubiquitously accepted in all legal
persuasions throughout the ages there is an alarming and sinister
increase in instances where convicts have filed appeals apparently with
a view to circumvent and escape undergoing the sentences awarded

against them. The routine is to file an appeal, apply and get enlarged
on BAIL or get exempted from surrender, and thereafter wilfully to
become untraceable or unresponsive. It is the bounden duty cast upon
the Judge not merely to ensure that an innocent person is not punished
but equally not to become a mute spectator to the spectacle of convict
circumventing his conviction it is, therefore, imperative to put an end
to such practice by the expeditious disposal of appeals. The inherent
powers of the High Court, poignantly preserved in Section 482 of the
CrPC, can also be pressed into service but with care, caution and
circumspection the High Court has considered the case in all its
complexities. The argument that the High Court was duty-bound to
appoint an amicus curiae is not legally sound.

2007 )
Sushil Sharma Appellant Vs. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon'ble
Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan
Gogoi .
Subject Index: Death sentence awarded by the sessions court
confirmed by Delhi High Court appeal, by special leave the appellant
has challenged judgment and order mere brutality of the murder or
the number of persons killed or the manner in which the body is
disposed of has not always persuaded this Court to impose death
penalty. Similarly, at times, in the peculiar factual matrix, this Court has
not thought it fit to award death penalty in cases, which rested on
circumstantial evidence or solely on approvers evidence. Where
murder, though brutal, is committed driven by extreme emotional
disturbance and it does not have enormous proportion, the option of life
imprisonment has been exercised in certain cases. Extreme poverty and
social status has also been taken into account amongst other
circumstances for not awarding death sentence there can be no hard
and fast rules which the court can follow while considering whether an
accused should be awarded death sentence or not. The core of a
criminal case is its facts and the facts differ from case to case
decision whether to impose death penalty or not must be taken in light
of guiding principles laid down in several authoritative pronouncements
of this Court in the facts and attendant circumstances of each case
murder was the outcome of strained personal relationship. It was not an
offence against the Society. The appellant has no criminal antecedents.
He is not a confirmed criminal and no evidence is led by the State to
indicate that he is likely to revert to such crimes in future. It is,
therefore, not possible in the facts of the case to say that there is no
chance of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated death
sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

2013)
Sudam Charan Dash Appellant Vs. State of Orissa & another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur .
Subject Index: Bail grant of in challenge after rejecting the
prayer for anticipatory BAIL, the High Court has negated its own order
by directing the trial court to release respondent no. 2 on BAIL in
view of the Judgments laid down in Savitri Agarwal v. State of
Maharashtra[(2009) 8 SCC 325] & Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of
Punjab,[(1980) 2 SCC 565] the aforesaid order set aside appeal
disposed.

Atmaram Appellant Vs. State of U.P. & another Respondents,
Justice Vikrammajit Sen.
Subject Index: Bail grant of in challenge Indian Penal Code,
1870 sections 147, 149, 323, 302 charge under appeals filed
keeping in view the criminal antecedents of respondent no 2 as well as
the specific role assigned against him in the subject complaint, High
Court has erred in granting BAIL to the said respondent the Court
completely lost perspective of the fact that intimidation of witnesses is a
common occurrence at least as regards persons who have come into
conflict with the law on multiple occasions, which is the case of the
respondent impugned Order is set aside and the BAIL of the said
respondent cancelled also the High Court erred in granting BAIL to
One Rafal Singh another respondent his BAIL/bonds shall stand
cancelled appeals disposed.

2013)
Ranjit Singh Appellant Vs. State of M.P. and others Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Dipak Misra.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 439 BAIL
petition cancellation of in challenge learned additional sessions
judge while granting regular BAIL has ignored the parameters laid u/s.
439 and has acted on the bed rock of the order passed by the High
Court in M.Cr.C. No. 701 of 2013 whereunder BAIL granted to the
appellant u/s. 439 cancelled and he was asked to surrender and apply
for regular BAIL learned sessions judge has absolutely misconstrued the
order passed by the High Court appeal disposed in terms of the

modification in the order passed by the learned single Judge.

2013)
Nasiruddin Appellant Vs. State (NCT) Delhi and Others
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.
Subject Index: Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 section 438 can
the Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with an application for
anticipatory BAIL filed under Section 438 of the aforesaid Act, express
his opinion on merits that no case is made out under Section 326 IPC,
even when the investigation is not yet over to consider held that
question as to whether the case will fall under Section 326 IPC could be
determined only after the investigation is completed learned
Additional Sessions Judge is not justified in expressing the opinion that
since the injury is simple, no offence under Section 326 IPC has been
made out, especially when the investigation is yet to be completed
the ingredients of section under Section 326 IPC have not been satisfied
order passed by the High Court, are set aside appeal allowed.

2014)
Km. Hema Mishra Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Desai and
Subject Index: Constitution of India Article 226 writ under
once a writ is dismissed, all the interim reliefs granted would also go
this Court has already passed an interim order on 1.3.2013 granting
BAIL to the appellant on certain conditions. The said order will continue
till the completion of the trial. However, if the appellant is not cooperating with the investigation, the State can always move for
vacating the order though the High Courts have very wide powers
under Art.226, the very vastness of the powers imposes on it the
responsibility to use them with circumspection and in accordance with
the judicial consideration and well established principles, so much so
that while entertaining writ petitions for granting interim protection
from arrest, the Court would not go on to the extent of including the
provision of anticipatory BAIL as a blanket provision the provisions of
Article 226 are a devise to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The
powers are, therefore, to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice
and to prevent abuse of process of law by authorities indiscriminately
making pre-arrest of the accused persons.

2008)
State of Gujarat Appellant Vs. Kishanbhai Etc. Respondents,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code Sections 363, 369, 376, 394 and
302 Bombay Police Act Section 135 (1) abduction of appellant's
daughter FIR registered accused denied involvement no
evidence produced by appellant inconsistency in witnesses
statements held no merit in appeal, dismissed Supreme Court
framed guidelines for proper administration of case by State acquittal
of accused failure of justice delivery system State to put
procedural mechanism training programmes for junior
investigation/prosecution officials action against erring officers.

of 2014, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7913 of 2013)
Lingaram Kodopi Appellant Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice A.K. Sikri.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 121, 124(1) and
120(B) and Chhattisgarh Jansuraksha Adhiniyam sections 8(1)(2)(3)
and Unlawful Activities Act sections (1), (2) and (3) implication under
the appellants deserve to be enlarged on BAIL during the pendency
of trial on furnishing personal securities in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with
two sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court it would be subject to the condition that the appellants shall
report to the concerned police station once a week i.e. at 10.30 a.m. on
every Monday to show their presence they shall also inform the Court
about their place of stay/ residence and disclose to the Court as to
when there is a change of residence.

2011)
Phula Singh Appellant Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sections 7 and
13(2) acquittal under appeal there is no perversity in the
judgment of the High Court as it cannot be said that the judgment is
not based on evidence or the evidence on record has not properly been
reappreciated by the appellate court, which may warrant interference
by this court the appeal is dismissed. The appellant has been
enlarged on BAIL. The BAIL bonds are cancelled. He must surrender

before the Ld. Special Judge.

of 2014 Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34691 of 2011)
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. & another Appellants Vs. The
State of Maharashtra & others Respondents, decided on
1/30/2014.
Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.
Subject Index: Indian Forest Act, 1927 section 35(3) whether
the mere issuance of a notice under the provisions of Section 35(3) of
the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is sufficient for any land being declared a
private forest within the meaning of that expression as defined in
Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act,
1975 the question must be answered in the negative. Connected
therewith is the question whether the word issued in Section 2(f) (iii)
of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 read with
Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 must be given a literal
interpretation or a broad meaning the word must be given a broad
meaning in the surrounding context in which it is used.

2014, Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8406 of 2012)
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Appellant Vs. State of Gujarat &
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and
Subject Index: Investigation into the death of Amit Jethwa a Right
to Information activist be investigated by the CBI authorities and
further directing that the proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet
submitted by the Gujarat Police shall remain stayed this special leave
petition impugns the judgment and order dated 25th September, 2012
passed by the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal
Application No.1925 of 2010.

2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 766 of 2014))
Pooja Bhatia Appellant Vs. Vishnu Narain Shivpuri & another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 342, 326-B and
506 charge under BAIL application filed by the respondent
rejected appeal before the High Court the High Court by the
impugned order after taking note of the submissions made by both the
sides and considering the injury report as well as other factual matrix
and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, released
Respondent No. 1 (herein) on BAIL the said order is under challenge
by the complainant in the present appeal inasmuch as throwing acid
on the complainant is a serious one though no injury on her, but spit on
her T-shirt and it got burnt and taking note of his conduct after the
impugned order of the High Court dated 16.01.2014, Court is satisfied
that the accused is not entitled to continue the benefit of BAIL order
for early trial.

2014 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.1348 of 2014])
Sundeep Kumar Bafna Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra &
another Respondents , decided on 3/27/2014.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 section 439 BAIL
under the futility of the Appellants endeavours to secure anticipatory
BAIL having attained finality, he had once again knocked at the portals
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, this time around for regular
BAIL under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC),
which was declined with the observations that it is the Magistrate whose
jurisdiction has necessarily to be invoked and not of the High Court or
even the Sessions Judge. The legality of this conclusion is the gravemen
of the appeal while declining to grant anticipatory BAIL to the
Appellant, this Court had extended to him transient insulation from
arrest for a period of four weeks to enable him to apply for regular BAIL
the learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that he was devoid
of jurisdiction so far as the application presented to him by the
Appellant conceptually, he could have declined to accept the prayer
to surrender to the Courts custody, although, the Hon'ble Court
presently not aware of any reason for this option to be exercised. Once
the prayer for surrender is accepted, the Appellant would come into the
custody of the Court within the contemplation of Section 439 CrPC. The
Sessions Court as well as the High Court, both of which exercised
concurrent powers under Section 439, would then have to venture to
the merits of the matter so as to decide whether the applicant/Appellant
had shown sufficient reason or grounds for being enlarged on BAIL
the impugned Order is, accordingly, set aside. The Learned Single Judge
shall consider the Appellants plea for surrendering to the Court and
dependent on that decision, the Learned Single Judge shall, thereafter,
consider the Appellants plea for his being granted BAIL. The Appellant
shall not be arrested for a period of two weeks or till the final disposal
of the said application, whichever is later the learned Single Judge
shall remain impervious to any pressure that may be brought to bear
upon him either from the public or from the media as this is the
fundamental and onerous duty cast on every Judge.

155 of 2013 with Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 158, 165, 170, 171, 179, 181
196, 206 of 2013, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 11 of 2014 Contempt Petition
(Crl.) No..of 2014 (D1372) in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 155 of 2013
Transferred Case (Civil) Nos. 123, 124 and 125 of 2013, Transfer
Petition (Civil) Nos. 1750, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830 of 2013
and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 35402 of 2013)
Mohd. Haroon & others Petitioners Vs. Union of India & another
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble The Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon'ble
Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan
Gogoi .
Subject Index: Constitution of India Article 32 writ petition under
communal riots broke out on 7-9-2013 around District
Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh as a result of communal tension prevailing
in the city, which wrecked lives of a large number of people who fled
from their homes out of anxiety and fear it is the claim of the
petitioners herein that the local administration instead of enforcing the
law allowed the congregation not only to take place, negligently and
perhaps with certain amount of complicity, but also failed to monitor its
proceedings. It is asserted in the petitions that since 27.08.2013 more
than 200 Muslims have been brutally killed and around 500 are still
missing in the spurt of the incident in 50 villages of the Jat community
dominated areas where the Muslim community is in minority. It is the
stand of the petitioners that in the remote villages more than 40,000
persons have migrated under threat and have been forcibly asked to
move out of the village otherwise they would be killed directions
issued.
2014 SCCL.COM 194(Case/Appeal No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.872

OF 2014)
LICIL ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ANR. , decided on
4/15/2014.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
and Hon'ble Mr. Justice PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE.
Smuggling Activities Act,1974 detention order passed under High
Court declining to quash the order the detaining authority after
scrutiny and evaluation of the proposals and the documents, decided on
25th of January, 2013 to place the proposals before the screening
committee and forwarded the same to it on 1st of February, 2013. The
proposals of the detenus detention along with two others were
considered by the screening committee which concurred with the
recommendation of the sponsoring authority Supreme Court is in
agreement with the High Court that the BAIL order passed by the trial
court in Andhra Pradesh is not a crucial and vital document and the
omission by the detaining authority to consider the same has, in no way
affected its subjective satisfaction Supreme Court does not find any
error in the order of detention and the order passed by the High Court,
refusing to quash the same.

2003 and 15 of 2004)
Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah & others Appellants Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh Respondent, decided on 4/22/2014.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
307, 302 read with section 149 trial under acquittal of all the
accused acquittal set aside the trial courts view was not perverse.
It was taken after thorough marshalling of evidence. It was a
reasonably possible view. The High Court erred in disturbing it the
impugned judgment and order is set aside. The appellants in both the
appeals are acquitted of all the charges.
2014 SCCL.COM 211(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. of 2014,

Arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 2375 of 2014)
State of Maharashtra & another Appellants Vs. Pappu @ Suresh
Budharmal Kalani Respondent, decided on 4/24/2014.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice P. Sathasivam, Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana.
Subject Index: Bail granting of appeal by the State
respondent case registered under Section 120(B) read with Section
302, IPC on the allegation of hatching criminal conspiracy in the killing
of the deceased the High Court enlarged him on BAIL by the order
dated 7th March, 2014 which is impugned herein there is no doubt
that the respondent is in jail for almost 9 years it will take a number
of years for the High Court to hear the appeal Supreme Court
thought it fit to request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from
today on its own merits.

2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11686 of 2007) With Civil
Appeal No. 5388 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10281 of
2009) Civil Appeal No. 5389-5390 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Nos.18804-18805 of 2009) Civil Appeal No. 5391 of 2014 (@
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13199 of 2012)\ Civil Appeal No. 5392
of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13200 of 2012) Civil Appeal

No. 5393 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4598 of 2013)
Civil Appeal No. 5394 of 2014 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
12789 of 2014) (@ SLP(C) CC4268 of 2013) Writ Petition (C) No.145
of 2011 And T.C. (C) Nos.84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 127 of 2013)
Animal Welfare Board of India Appellant Vs. A. Nagaraja &
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose.
Subject Index: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Tamil Nadu
Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009 and the notification dated 11.7.2011
issued by the Central Government under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act
issue of seminal importance with regard to the Rights of Animals under
our Constitution, laws, culture, tradition, religion and ethology, which
are to be examined, in connection with the conduct of Jallikattu,
Bullock-cart races etc. in the States of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra,
with particular reference to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act, 1960 the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009
and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government
under Section 22(ii) of the PCA Act directions issued Appeals,
transferred cases and the Writ Petition are disposed of setting aside the
judgment of the Madras High Court, but upholding the judgment of
Bombay High Court and the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the
Central Government.
2014 SCCL.COM 275(Case/Appeal No: I.A. NOs. 101-103 in

Contempt Petitions (C) No.412 - 413 of 2012 in Civil Appeals No. 9813
and 9833 of 2011 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 260 of 2013 in Civil
Appeal No. 8643 of 2012)
S.E.B.I. Appellant Vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd.
& others Respondents, decided on 6/4/2014.
Justice A.K. Sikri.
Subject Index: Equity shares/OFCDS or any other securities
direction of sebi to saharas not to offer in any manner whatsoever
either directly or indirectly pending further orders aggrieved by the
said order Saharas approached the High Court at Bombay but the High
Court not only declined to interfere with the directions issued by SEBI
but also passed a further order on 23rd June, 2011, directing the
promoter Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara and Directors Miss Vandana
Bhargava, Mr. Ravi Shankar Dubey and Mr. Ashok Roy Choudhary of
Saharas to jointly and severely refund the amount collected by Saharas
in terms of the RHPs issued by them alongwith interest @ 15% p.a.
from the date of the receipt of the deposits till the date of such
repayment Aggrieved by the order aforementioned, Saharas filed an
appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) who concurred
with the view taken by the SEBI, and while affirming the order passed
by the SEBI, directed Saharas to refund the amount collected from the
investors within a period of six weeks keeping in view the importance

of the issues that fall for determination in these proceedings and the
ramifications that the directions issued by this Court may have as also
the fact that one very important order which is sought to be enforced in
these proceedings was passed by a three-Judge Bench, the Honble
Supreme Court refer these proceedings to a three-Judge Bench to be
constituted by the Honble Chief Justice of India Mr. F.S. Nariman,
Senior Advocate to assist the Court as an amicus curiae. Shri Nariman
shall be free to associate two juniors of his choice to brief him in the
matter.
2014 SCCL.COM 280(Case/Appeal No: Petition(s) for Special Leave

to Appeal (Crl) No(s).601 of 2013)
State of Rajasthan Petitioner Vs. Surendra Sharma Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur.
Subject Index: A) NDPS Act, 1985 section 8 read with section 20
and section 8 read with section 29 respondent charged with offences
punishable under acquittal by trial Court of the offences under
section 8 read with section 29 of the NDPS Act convicted for offence
under section 8 read with section 20(b) sentenced to 15 years.
rigorous imprisonment the respondent was, inter alia, sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for three years. The respondent carried
an appeal to the Rajasthan High Court. The appeal has been admitted.
By the impugned order, the High Court granted BAIL to the respondent.
The High Court referred to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The High Court
observed that it was suspending the sentence of the respondent without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The State of
Rajasthan has challenged the said Order learned Additional Solicitor
General of India assailed the impugned order and pointed out that
quantity involved is huge. He submitted that while considering the BAIL
application, the High Court should have focused its attention on Section
37 (1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act stated that the High Court has not
expressed any opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the appellant is not guilty there is substance in the submission
the High Court was not oblivious of Section 37 as it has referred to it.
It would have been better if the High court had concentrated on Section
37 (1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. However, on this ground, in the facts of
this case, the BAIL cannot be cancelled there is nothing to show that
the respondent has indulged in any objectionable activities, after his
release on BAIL deem it appropriate, therefore, not to interfere with
the impugned order. B) BAIL cancellation in the facts of this case, the
BAIL cannot be cancelled there is nothing to show that the
respondent has indulged in any objectionable activities, after his release
on BAIL deem it appropriate, therefore, not to interfere with the
impugned order.
2014 SCCL.COM 293(Case/Appeal No: Crl. MP. No(s) 389 of 2014)

Union of India Petitioner Vs. Jaipal Verma Respondent, decided
on 1/27/2014.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
Subject Index: A) NDPS Act, 1985 section 37 question of law
relating to Section 37 of the NDPS Act is left open and to be decided in
an appropriate case. B) Delay condonation of petitioner-Union of
India has filed the present Special Leave Petition against the grant of
BAIL to the respondent-accused who has served nearly eight years and
eight months out of the sentence of ten years. There is a delay of 291
days in view of the fact that the petitioner being the Government
and in the absence of adequate reasons, Court is not inclined to
condone the delay.
2014 SCCL.COM 296(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No.11301132 of 2014 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4134-4136 of 2011))
Narayanbhai Mangaldas Patel & etc. Appellants Vs. Union of
India & another etc. Respondents, decided on 6/7/2014.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Justice Mr. Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
and Hon'ble Justice Mr. Ranjan Gogoi.
Subject Index: NDPS Rules schedule Diazepam possession of
appeals by accused by the impugned order at the instance of
respondent Union of India the High Court cancelled the BAIL granted to
the appellants in the N.D.P.S Special Case Diazepam covered under
Schedule I to the NDPS Rules could not be possessed by any person
and the possession of such substance could be regulated only by the
provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act BAIL granted cancelled the licence
for manufacture and sale (or for distribution) of drugs other than those
specified in Schedule C, C(1) & X manufactured by M/s Shree Sharda
Chemicals included Diazepam I.P/B.P/E.P/U.S.P the appellants shall
be enlarged on BAIL subject to their furnishing BAIL bond of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties.

2014 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3889 of 2012))
Inderpal Singh Appellant Vs. Directorate of Revenue
and Hon'ble Justice Mr. Ranjan Gogoi.
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 on search 0.78 Kg Ketamine and
5.405 Kg white powder suspected to be Ketamine along with 100 vials
of Ketamine hydrochloride injection I.P. of 10 ml for veterinary use
were recoverd, which were seized under the provisions of the N.D.P.S.
Act prayer for anticipatory BAIL has been rejected appellant has
preferred this appeal appellant referred to licence granted under
Form 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rule for manufacturing of any of the
drugs specified in Schedule-C and (i) excluding those specified in
Schedule 9 and 10 not included in the annexure and submitted that the
appellant has valid licence to manufacture Ketamine hydrochloride in
the event of arrest the appellant shall be enlarged on BAIL subject to
his furnishing BAIL bond of Rs.20,000/-.

2014 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9483 of 2013))
Mishrilal Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided on
5/1/2014.
and Hon'ble Justice Mr. Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 sections 8/15 and 8/25
conviction under appellant convicted to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and out of which he has already spent more
than eight years in custody 24.22 quintal of poppy-straw was
recovered from the appellant and, therefore, he was convicted for the
offence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, Court allows the prayer, set aside the impugned order dated
13.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal
Appeal No.636 of 2009, suspend the sentence and enlarge the
appellant on BAIL in connection with Special S.T. No. 101 of 2008
subject to his furnishing BAIL bond of Rs. 50,000/-.
2014 SCCL.COM 302(Case/Appeal No: Petition(s) for Special leave

to Appeal (Crl) No(s) 453 of 2014)
Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & others Petitioners Vs. State of
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Petition against the interim order passed by the
Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal FIR registered under NDPS
Act, 1985 accused while being taken to the sessions court expressed
his desire to see his ailing mother some substance was mixed with
tea for the escort person by the relations of the accused accused
Shiva absconded from the custody of these persons complaint filed
against senior most person of the said escort party the petitioners
were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 222 IPC
vide judgment and order dated 9.11.2006 and the petitioner no.1 was
awarded 3 years' RI and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereto, to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 were
convicted under Section 222 IPC the petitioners preferred Criminal
Appeal No.2012 of 2006 before the High Court of Gujarat and during
the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners had been enlarged on BAIL
vide order dated 22.11.2006. The appeal was finally heard on
11.12.2013 and the court took a view that sanction of the State
Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 was necessarily required, and in view thereof, the order was
dictated in open court allowing the appeal on technical issue the
order dictated in open court and acquitting the petitioners vide order
dated 11.12.2013 was recalled by the court suo moto vide order dated
27.12.2013 and directed the appeal to be re-heard a Judge's
responsibility is very heavy, particularly, in a case where a man's life
and liberty hang upon his decision nothing can be left to chance or
doubt or conjecture. Therefore, one cannot assume, that the Judge
would not have changed his mind before the judgment becomes final
no exception can be taken to the procedure adopted by the High
Court in the instant case.

2009)
Manjit Singh @ Raju Appellant Vs. State of Punjab Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.
Subject Index: A) NDPS Act, 1985 section 18 FIR under as per
the FIR, 1 kg of opium was recovered from the scooter of the
appellant. The matter was investigated thereafter on the basis of
which challan was submitted before the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur.
Charge was framed under Section 18 of the NDPS Act and the
appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur and he was
directed to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and
fine of Rs. 1 lakh and appeal against the conviction filed dismissed by
the High Court it is this judgment which is impugned by the time
this appeal came up for hearing, the appellant had served substantial
part of the sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, he was
released on BAIL the entire recovery of the contraband allegedly
recovered from the appellant is shrouded in mystery and in any case,
the mandatory procedure as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act
was not adhered to there were material contradictions in the
statements made by different police officers who appeared as
witnesses in support of the prosecution case doubt about the
genuineness of the sample which was collected and sent for chemical
examination. B) NDPS Act, 1985 section 50 non-compliance of
the appellant had in fact exercised his option to be searched in the
presence of the Gazetted Officer. However, admittedly, no Gazetted
Officer was asked to remain present at the time of search and to cover
this lapse, the police officers gave false statement, which is contrary to
the record there are so many material contradictions and the officers
have given different versions in his statement, the appellant had
categorically stated that he wanted to be searched in the presence of

the Gazetted Officer and contrary to the said statement, the appellant
was searched by the SHO and the police party only and the police has
tried to make out a case as if the appellant had not made a statement
that he wanted to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer
which statement of the police officers is clearly false and it is contrary
to Exhibit PD the contradictions which are material in nature and go
to the root of the matter falsify the prosecution story and it cannot be
said that the case has been proved against the appellant there is
breach of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act.
2014 SCCL.COM 310(Case/Appeal No: Petition(s) for Special Leave

to Appeal (Crl) No(s).9170 of 2013)
Deepak Monga Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Justice Mr. A.K. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 petition under appellant had a
drug licence for running a chemist shop and that his drug licence was
cancelled and he had filed a statutory appeal and during the pendency
of the appeal some medicines were found which were alleged to be
containing narcotic substances, Court is of the prima facie opinion that
the appellant has not committed any offence under the NDPS Act and
this is a fit case in which the appellant should be released on BAIL to
the satisfaction of the trial court the appellant shall be released on
BAIL to the satisfaction of the trial court in connection with FIR No.286
dated 10 July, 2012 aforesaid prima facie opinion will not influence
the trial court in the trial.

2011)
Pradeep Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent,
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 498-A and 304B
conviction under confirmed by the High Court appeal on the
basis of the evidence of Subedar Sapattar Singh (PW-8) and dying
declaration, it can be clearly concluded that the Trial Court and the High
Court rightly held that the accused Pradeep Kumar had subjected Manju
to harassment as defined under Clause (b) of explanation to Section
498-A no ground to interfere with impugned judgment. In absence of
any merit, the appeal is dismissed. BAIL bond stands cancelled.
Appellant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve the
remainder period of sentence.

2014)
Sunil Kumar.Appellant Vs. Vipin Kumar and others
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra & Hon'ble Mr.
Justice V.Gopala Gowda .
enlarging the respondents on BAIL discretionary power rightly
applied by High Court both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision
filed by both the parties are pending before the High Court which
means that the convictions of the respondents are not confirmed by the
appellate court. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the respondents
had been granted BAIL earlier and they did not misuse the liberty the
High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant facts including
the fact that the chance of the appeal being heard in the near future is
extremely remote, hence, the High Court has released the respondents
on BAIL on the basis of sound legal reasoning.

2007 With Criminal Appeal No. 848,855,876 of 2011 and Criminal
Appeal No. 1710-1717 of 2014)
Union of India and Another Appellants Vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Chief Justice R.M. Lodha, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.
Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985
Prosecution under each one of the accused is alleged to be in
possession of some psychotropic substance mentioned in the Schedule
to the Act. Eventually, the question is whether persons accused of
committing an offence under the Act could be enlarged on BAIL in view
of the stipulations contained under Section 37 of the Act. In some of
these cases, BAIL was granted by the concerned High Court and in
some cases, BAIL was rejected on the analysis of the provisions of
chapters VI and VII of the 1985 Rules, Court is of the opinion, both
these Chapters contain Rules permitting and regulating the import and
export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances other than those
specified in the Schedule-I to the 1985 Rules subject to various
conditions and procedure stipulated in Chapter VI. Whereas Chapter VII
deals exclusively with various other aspects of DEALING IN psychotropic
substances and the conditions subject to which such DEALING IN is
permitted both Rules 53 and 64 are really in the nature of exception
to the general scheme of Chapters VI and VII respectively containing a
list of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which cannot be dealt
in any manner notwithstanding the other provisions of these two
chapters neither Rule 53 nor Rule 64 is a source of authority for
prohibiting the DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
the source is Section 8. Rajesh Kumar Guptas case in Court's view is
wrongly decided the complete analysis of the implications of Section
80 (Section 80. Application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 not
barred the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall
be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) or the rules made thereunder.) of the Act is not
really called for in the instant case. It is only required to be stated that
essentially the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 deals with various
operations of manufacture, sale, purchase etc. of drugs generally
whereas Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals
with a more specific class of drugs and, therefore, a special law on the
subject further the provisions of the Act operate in addition to the
provisions of 1940 Act the fact that most of these matters are old
matters [pertaining to years 2006 to 2013], Court deems it appropriate
to remit all these matters to the concerned High Courts for passing of
appropriate orders in the light of this judgment.

With Civil Appeal Nos. 2105-2112 of 2013)
State of NCT of Delhi Appellant(s) Vs. Sanjay Respondent(s),
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Mines and Minerals
( Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 whether the provisions
contained in Sections 21, 22 and other sections of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 operate as bar against
prosecution of a person who has been charged with allegation which
constitutes offences under Section 379/114 and other provisions of the
Indian Penal Code whether the provisions of Mines and Minerals Act
explicitly or impliedly excludes the provisions of Indian Penal Code when
the act of an accused is an offence both under the Indian Penal Code
and under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act.

2009)
Sri Chand and another Appellants Vs. State of Punjab
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 304-B and 498-A
conviction under High Court allowed the appeal of one person on
the appeal preferred by the aforesaid three accused persons under
Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court on 12.5.2009, while directing
issuance of notice in the matter, confined the appeal to accused nos.2 &
3 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the husband-accused no.1
this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the
High Court. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed and the BAIL
bonds of the accused-appellants stand cancelled. They shall surrender
forthwith to serve out the remaining period of the sentence, failing
which, the trial court is directed to take appropriate steps for sending
them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

2009)
Liyakat and Another Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y.Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Subject Index: Appeal by special leave directed against the
judgment and order dated 4th February, 2009 passed by the High Court
of Rajasthan at Jodhpur whereby the High Court partly allowed the
appeal of the appellants and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for
further trial the High Court has erred in law in setting aside the trial
court judgment and remanding the matter back for retrial and a fresh
decision. It is a fit case where the High Court should decide the appeal
on merit Court remands the matter back to the High Court to decide
the appeal on merit in accordance with law. The appellants shall remain
on BAIL till further orders of the High Court in the matter.

Abdul Azeez P V. and others Petitioners Vs. National
Investigation Agency Respondent, decided on 11/14/2014.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 143, 147, 153(A),
153(B), 149 read with section 25)1)(a) of Arms Act, u/s 4 and 5 of the
Explosives Act and under section 18 and 13(1)(a)b) of UAPA case
transferred to NIA the materials adverted to show that it was a final
report on the facets investigated into by the investigating agency.
Furthermore, the requisite sanctions as required under Sections 18 and
18A of the UAPA and so also under Section 7 of the Explosive
Substances Act were also accorded by the concerned authorities
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. stood fully complied with and as such the
petitioners are not entitled to statutory BAIL under Section 167(2) of
Cr.P.C.
2014 SCCL.COM 557(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 24462447 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3527-3528 of 2014))
Rakesh Baban Borhade Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra &

Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble
Ms. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Anticipatory BAIL applications dismissed by High Court
filed by the appellant while granting anticipatory BAIL to two other
persons arrayed as accused in the same case appeal it is alleged
that inspite of the timely payment of Rs.7,22,12,256/-, the accused
persons did not transfer the lands as promised in the MOU the
appellant was directed to deposit a sum of rupees one crore in the
Registry of the Supreme Court and in compliance of the said order, the
appellant has deposited rupees one crore. Since the transaction is in the
nature of commercial transaction and since the appellant has also
shown his bonafide by depositing rupees one crore, pending further
investigation, anticipatory BAIL could be granted to the appellant the
appellant shall co-operate with the investigating agency. Without
prejudice to the contention of the parties, the complainant second
respondent (M/s.Merit Magnum Construction) is permitted to withdraw
rupees one crore deposited by the appellant in this Court.

2006 with Civil Appeal No. 7088 of 2002, Civil Appeal No. 7092 of 2002,
Civil Appeal No. 7094 of 2002 Civil Appeal No. 802 of 2005 Civil Appeal
No. 10719 of 2014 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4221 of 2012) )
Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Board of
Trustees, Port of Bombay Respondent , decided on 12/3/2014.
Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice R.K. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Demurrage and Port charges payment of the
liability of the agent of a ship owner to pay demurrage and port charges
to the Board of Trustees of a Port in respect of goods brought into the
port and warehoused by the said authority the consignee of the
goods not having either cleared the same or having responded to any of
the notices issued, the goods were sold by public auction by the Port
Trust authority after almost four years of receipt thereof. The amount
fetched in the auction fell short of the total charges payable which led
the said authority to file a suit against the Steamer Agent for the
balance amount. The suit was dismissed. In appeal, the High Court
reversed the decree holding the Steamer Agent to be liable. In doing
so, the High Court held that the ratio of the law laid down by this Court
in Trustees of the Port of Madras through Its Chairman Vs. K.P.V. Sheikh
Mohd. Rowther & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another[(1997) 10 SCC 285 = AIR
1995 SC 1922] once the bill of lading is endorsed or the delivery
order is issued it is the consignee or endorsee who would be liable to
pay the demurrage charges and other dues of the Port Trust authority.
In all other situations the contract of BAILment is one between the
Steamer Agent (bailor) and the Port Trust Authority (bailee) giving rise
to the liability of the Steamer Agent for such charges till such time that
the bill of lading is endorsed or delivery order is issued by the Steamer
Agent the special provisions of Sections 61 and 62 of the Act which

enable the Port Trust authority to proceed against the goods within its
custody to recover the charges which may be payable to the Port Trust
authority. Ordinarily and in the normal course if resort is made to the
enabling provisions in the Act of 1963 to proceed against the goods for
recovery of the charges payable to the Port Trust authority there may
not be any occasion for the said authority to sustain any loss or even
suffer any shortfall of the dues payable to it so as to initiate recovery
proceedings against the ship owners.

2014 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4199 of 2013))
The Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-F) and
another Appellants Vs. Nabila and another Respondents, decided
on 12/9/2014.
Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: National Security Act, 1980 section 3(1)(a)
detention order under quashed by DB of the Madras High Court
appeal by special leave the High Court held that the satisfaction
arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real or imminent
possibility of the detenu being enlarged on BAIL is vitiated in law a
long time has lapsed inasmuch as the period of detention fixed in the
order of detention has already expired in April, 2014. Even if the
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside, the detenu
cannot and shall not be taken into custody for serving the remaining
period of detention unless there still exist materials to the satisfaction
of the detaining authority for putting him under detention initial
detention order having been expired long back, it is for the detaining
authority to take a decision in accordance with law the impugned
order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained.

State of Punjab Appellant Vs. Jagga Singh etc. Respondents,
Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302 the State of
Punjab aggrieved by the acquittal of five of the accused preferred
appeal in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331 of 2009. All these appeals
are heard together and common judgment is rendered all the
criminal appeals are dismissed. The BAIL granted to the
appellant/accused Surjit Singh in Criminal Appeal no. 2328 of 2009
shall be cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to serve out the remaining sentence.

of 2009 with Criminal Appeal Nos.1238 of 2009; 1239 of 2009; 1241 of
2009; 1194 of 2011; and 1892 of 2011)
Inder Singh & others Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan
Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 302/149 307/149
147 and 148 21 persons have been convicted under accused nos.
1, 2 and 3 have also been convicted for offences under section 27 of the
Arms Act, 1959 the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 10th
September 2001 at 06:45 p.m. in Village Dhodi there were 29
accused persons named in the FIR, all residents of Village Dhodi
since the accused persons and the 6 material eye witnesses in this case
are co-villagers, it is expected that at least three witnesses should be in
a position to name individual accused persons for sustaining his
conviction the appeals preferred by the five appellants, namely,
Bhagwan Singh, son of Prabhu Lal (appellant no.3 in Crl. Appeal
No.1239 of 2009); Suresh Kumar, son of Ram Dhakad (appellant no.3 in
Crl. Appeal No.493 of 2009); Kanhi Ram, son of Prabhu Lal (appellant
no.4 in Crl. Appeal No.1239 of 2009); Prahlad Singh, son of Nathu Lal
(sole appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1241 of 2009); and Ram Prasad, son
of Bheru Lal (appellant no.4 in Crl. Appeal No.493 of 2009) are allowed.
They are granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges. The
appeals of remaining 16 appellants are dismissed. If on BAIL, their BAIL
bonds shall stand cancelled and they shall be taken into custody
forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence in accordance with law.

2015 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No. 9247 of 2013))
Mansoor Alam Appellant Vs. State of U.P. & another
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Bail granting of appeal the respondent Moni
alias Mohd. Ahmad stands convicted under Section 302/34/120B Indian
Penal Code in proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.112 of 2006
under Section 302/384/307/120-B IPC, P.S. Anwarganj, District Kanpur
Nagar for causing death of Aftaab Alam on 3rd September, 2006 at
09.30 P.M. by firing bullet from country made pistol the High Court
granted BAIL taking into account the contention that the deceased
sustained two fatal injuries and rest of the injuries were on non-vital
parts and also having regard to the period of custody of the respondent
a perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that the
antecedents of respondent No.2 have not been taken into account

order granting BAIL, in the facts and circumstances, is not called for.
There is no doubt that respondent No.2 appears to have undergone
imprisonment for more than eight years, but the contention raised on
behalf of the appellant that the respondent has criminal antecedents
and direct role in the murder which render the order granting BAIL
vulnerable cannot be brushed aside.

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited Appellant
Vs. B.P.L. Limited Respondent, decided on 1/9/2015.
Justice Dipak Misra .
Subject Index: Companies Act, 1956 sections 138 and 139
secured creditors the appellant shall remain as a secured creditor, for
it was registered as such under the Registrar of Companies. The
formalities for creating the charge having duly followed, the Division
Bench has referred to the Form No. 8 and 13 and also adverted to the
power of Registrar to make entries of satisfaction and release, as
provided under Sections 138 and 139 of the Act. It has also expressed
the view that in the absence of any proceeding, the status of the
company as a secured creditor continues after registration of the
deed of hypothecation, if a condition subsequent is not satisfied, that
would be in a different realm altogether. In any case, the finding has
been recorded that the respondent was not at fault and, in any case,
that would not change the status of the appellant as a secured creditor
the appellant cannot be treated as an unsecured creditor and it is not
permissible for him to put forth a stand that it would not be bound by
the Scheme that has been approved by the learned Company Judge.

2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9599 of 2013))
Narendra Kumar Amin Appellant Vs. CBI & others Respondents,
Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
default BAIL under rejected by the Gujarat High Court appeal
under the appellant/accused was arrested on 4.4.2013 for an offence
which had taken place on 15.6.2004, which is popularly known as the
fake encounter death of Ishrat Jahan. The offence alleged against the
appellant was punishable with life imprisonment or death and what is
popularly called Default BAIL becomes the indefeasible right on the
expiry of 90 days in the event of non filing of police report by then. On
3.7.2013 the first respondent viz. CBI filed what they called the charge
sheet which is alleged by the appellant as a misnomer because it does
not comply with the statutory requirement of police report under

Sections 173 (2) and 173(5) of Cr.P.C. the High Court is right in
rejecting the prayer of default BAIL under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Upon the filing of the police report, cognizance was taken by the
learned ACJM on 3.7.2013 which is evident from the order passed by
him the said order remains unchallenged by the appellant. Therefore,
it is not open for him to turn around and contend that cognizance was
not taken by the learned ACJM on 3.7.2013.

of 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.300-302 of 2013])
Sonu Gupta Appellant Vs. Deepak Gupta & others Respondents,
Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 464, 468 and 471
he respondents are accused in this Complaint Case which was filed
on 07.12.2010 for alleged offences under Section 464, 468 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) the substance of the accusation in the
instant complaint case is that anticipating legal action by the appellant
against renewed mental torture and harassment by the respondent no.1
and his other relations named as accused, as a stratagem and outcome
of a conspiracy, one of her earlier letters of complaint to some police
officials which had been withdrawn by the appellant in April-May 2001,
was changed and tampered as per convenience and a photocopy of
such undated complaint making out a weak case against the
respondents which was bound to fail, was got registered at the instance
of the accused persons themselves with the help of some police officials
as Criminal Case (FIR No.73/2002) on 06.10.2002 in the Mahila Thana,
Raipur by the Town Inspector of this Thana under pressure of accused
no.9, Additional Director General of Police, PHQ, Raipur in the
interest of justice, court direct that in the facts of the case accused
nos.6 to 9 shall be granted benefit of BAIL by the learned Magistrate if
they appear within 10 weeks and apply for same. The Magistrate shall
of course be at liberty to set reasonable conditions for such grant.

2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7506 of 2014))
Dr. Vinod Bhandari Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Respondent ,
Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Bail application dismissal by Division Bench of the
High Court appeal the offence alleged against the appellant has
serious adverse impact on the fabric of the society. The offence is of
high magnitude indicating illegal admission to large number of
undeserving candidates to the medical courses by corrupt means. Apart

from showing depravity of character and generation of black money, the
offence has the potential of undermining the trust of the people in the
integrity of medical profession itself. If undeserving candidates are
admitted to medical courses by corrupt means, not only the society will
be deprived of the best brains treating the patients, the patients will be
faced with undeserving and corrupt persons treating them in whom
they will find it difficult to repose faith when the allegations are
supported by material on record and there is a potential of trial being
adversely influenced by grant of BAIL, seriously jeopardising the
interest of justice, supreme court does not find any ground to interfere
with the view taken by the trial Court and the High Court in declining
BAIL.
go back

Bail Case Laws

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Bail Case Laws

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Search Results

Total No. of Records found: 420

2001 SCCL.COM 206(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 324 of

2001 SCCL.COM 227(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 394 of

the period stipulated thereunder? -- held the accused availed of his

2000 SCCL.COM 484(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4578 of

2001 SCCL.COM 273(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 507510 of 2001)

legislature has imposed stringent restrictions even in regard to grant of

2001 SCCL.COM 325(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 599 of

2001 SCCL.COM 450(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (Crl.) No.

2001 SCCL.COM 488(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 628 of

2001 SCCL.COM 642(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 880 of

2001 SCCL.COM 668(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 907 Of

2001 SCCL.COM 672(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 319320 of 1996)

2001 SCCL.COM 684(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 918919 of 2001)

2001 SCCL.COM 706(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 242 of

India and others Respondents, decided on 10/12/2001.

2001 SCCL.COM 787(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of

continue in accordance with law.

2001 SCCL.COM 876(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of

2001 SCCL.COM 884(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of

2001 SCCL.COM 891(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1253 of

2002 SCCL.COM 116(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1407 of

2002 SCCL.COM 184(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 381

2002 SCCL.COM 254(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 535 of

2002 SCCL.COM 448(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 745 of

K. Varadharaj Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

2002 SCCL.COM 585(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 10871088 of 2002)

2002 SCCL.COM 630(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of

2002 SCCL.COM 680(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1284 of

2002 SCCL.COM 714(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 441 of

2002 SCCL.COM 716(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1312 of

cancellation of BAIL -- left to the judicious discretion of the learned

2003 SCCL.COM 84(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 69 of

2003 SCCL.COM 150(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. ......... of

No....../2003 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16/2003))

2003 SCCL.COM 421(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of

2003 SCCL.COM 433(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 100 of

delay in execution of order of detention -- it is well settled that delay in

2003 SCCL.COM 450(Case/Appeal No: Suo-Motu Contempt Petition

2003 SCCL.COM 533(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 885887 of 2003)

2003 SCCL.COM 645(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 749 of

2003 SCCL.COM 666(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 854 of

2003 SCCL.COM 693(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1123 of

2003 SCCL.COM 696(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 888891 of 2003)

2003 SCCL.COM 791(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of

addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent- State

2003 SCCL.COM 830(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1725 of

2003 SCCL.COM 1033(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 436 of

conclusion available on this point is that the receipt was prepared by

2003 SCCL.COM 1052(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 389 of

2004 SCCL.COM 88(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 53 of

and exhaustively the contents of the letters received from the

2004 SCCL.COM 40(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 656 of

2004 SCCL.COM 47(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of

stands on one footing, but cancellation of BAIL is a harsh order because

2004 SCCL.COM 70(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 50 of

2004 SCCL.COM 87(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 162 of

2004 SCCL.COM 120(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 193 of

Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.

2004 SCCL.COM 162(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 853 of

2004 SCCL.COM 177(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (CRL).