Tag: #Bail

-Report by Gourav Jain

The Supreme Court, in the case of Menon Ekka @ Smt. Menon Ujjana Ekka vs. Union of India laid down that it can provide a criminal bail where an appeal is pending before the High Court even when the person has already gone through a part of his sentence, given the conditions are right.

Facts

The appellant was sentenced to 7 years of Rigorous Imprisonment by the Ranchi High Court. The appellant is a lady who had been convicted with her husband for an offence of the Prevention of Corruption Act, keeping in possession of inappropriate assets. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the lady has decided to appeal in the high court and as she had already undergone almost 3 years of her sentence, she asks for criminal bail from the Supreme Court.

Appellant’s Contentions

Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the lady has been sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, for which the appellant has already undergone 2 years and 9 months sentence. It was further contended that the appeals filed by the appellant and the others are not likely to be heard in near future and thus, it is asked for the court to release the appellant on bail during the time pending disposal of the appeal before the High Court.

Respondent’s Contention

Opposing the appeal, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has actively submitted that as such the High Court was ready to take up the appeals for the last disposal, however, the appellant and others were not ready for the hearing of the appeals. It is submitted that the appellant shall not make an unjustified unfairness that the appeal is not likely to be heard. It is said that looking at the charges against the appellant and the nature of the evidence, the High Court has refused correctly to suspend the sentence and release the lady on bail during the settlement of the appeal.

Judgement

Taking into consideration that the appellant is a lady and has already undergone 2 years and 9 months sentence, the appeal is allowed. She is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal pending before the High Court on the condition that it may be given by the learned Trial court. It is observed and made clear that the benefit of the order may not be available to the other accused persons and the present order may not be written as a precedent so far as the others are concerned. The court directed the Registry of the High Court to notify the Criminal Appeals of all the accused before the Bench taking up these appeals and the court requested the High Court to finally decide the said appeals as fast as possible but not after six months from the first listing.

All concerned appellants are ordered to cooperate in the disposal of the appeals by the High Court and within the time stated.  Any attempt on the part of the appellant and/or the other accused to delay the hearing of the appeals shall be seen seriously.

-Report by Sanket Pawar

Delhi High Court grants bail to the petitioner (spouse of the co-accused, Vinod) whose vehicle was used for the transportation of Heroin, in the case of SIMRANJEET KAUR Vs STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI.

Facts

A raid was conducted jointly by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and Delhi police upon receiving secret information on 29/09/17. The information said that a person named Imran, who resides at Dakshinpuri area of Delhi, will be bringing heroin from Bareilly, U.P. in large quantities. Imran would be bringing these large quantities of heroin at the instance and order of a person named Vinod a.k.a Rinku a.k.a. Mota Bhai. Imran could be caught on the road from Kalindi Kunj to Sarita Vihar near Drain (Nala) and opposite Shaheen Bagh at about 12:15 p.m. Accordingly, the raid was conducted and Imran was apprehended along with the vehicle in which he was transporting the heroin and 500g of heroin was recovered from him. Upon investigation, the name of Mota Bhai came forward, and a supplementary charge sheet was also filed with the Charge sheet of Imran. The supplementary charge sheet is also named the petitioner. The vehicle which Imran was using to transport the heroin was registered in the name of petitioner Simranjeet Kaur. She is the spouse of the co-accused Vinod a.k.a. Mota Bhai. Mota Bhai is a habitual offender and there are other FIRs registered in his name. The trial court had dismissed the bail application of the petitioner twice.

Petitioner’s Contention

The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that she was not aware of the recovery of any narcotic substances from her vehicle. It also argued that the phrase in Section 25 of the NDPS act “knowingly permitted” does not mention the transportation of narcotic substances by use of the vehicle. The counsel relied on the case of Sujit Tiwari vs the State of Gujarat, wherein the apex court granted bail to the accused on the ground that the accused was not aware of the illegal activities procured by his brother.

Respondent’s Contention

The Respondent argued that during the investigation the prime accused, Imran, revealed the vehicle which is registered in the name of the petitioner. The same vehicle was used for the transportation of heroin. The petitioner along with her husband, Mota Bhai, was absconding for a long time. The counsel claimed that the petitioner was having full knowledge of the transportation of the heroin which was to take place.

Judgement

The court observed that there has been no recovery of the heroin from the petitioner. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that she is the registered owner of the vehicle in which the heroin was transported by the prime accused. There is not any evidence which shows the major involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime. The court also relied on the judgement of the apex court in the case of Sujit Tiwari vs State of Gujarat. Relying on all the above factors the court decided to grant bail to the petitioner along with a bail bond of 50,000/-.

–Report by YASHVARDHAN SHARMA

An Assistant Conservator of Forests accused of abetting a female subordinate officer in committing suicide was granted bail by the Nagpur Bench. While granting bail to an applicant accused of abetting the death of a forest officer, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court stated that bail cannot be denied to quell society’s collective fury.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

• Mrs. ‘D’ (Deepali Chavan ) penned three suicide notes. The first note is a letter addressed to Mr. Reddy the then Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Melghat Tiger Project, Amravati, who is also arraigned as accused. The succeeding note is a letter addressed by Mrs. ‘D’ to her mother and the third note is a letter addressed by Mrs. ‘D’ to her husband.
• The deceased’s husband filed a report with Police Station Dharni, District Amravati, under Crime 211/2021, for offences punishable under Sections 306, 312, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant, who was direct superior at that time of Mrs. ‘D’s, and who is a member of the Indian Forest Service, was arrested on 27.03.2021.
• The applicant attempted to persuade the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur to grant bail, but in vain.
• Opposing Shivkumar’s bail application, district government pleader (DGP) Parikshit Ganorkar said There are accusations made against the defendants that led to Chavan’s suicide. There is prima facie evidence against the accused and He could have obstructed investigations and tamper with prosecution witnesses because he held a top position.
• Ganorkar testified in court that Shivkumar attempted to run and was apprehended dramatically at Nagpur train station. If he gets released on bail, He may attempt to flee justice as well and pleaded for discharge of his bail application.
• From the case diary and explicit, it is clear that Shivkumar had been tormenting Chavan for over a year. In March 2020, He even threatened to implicate Deepali in a case of atrocities and put her behind the bar.
• “The issues that have been raised when the accused forced her to perform field duties while pregnant, resulting in her abortion. The applicant used to call her at odd hours at night and disgustingly speak to her. The accused sought to take advantage of her loneliness, and when she refused, he used to punish her, according to the suicide note,” the court said.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Deepali Chavan penned three suicide notes. The first note is to Mr. Reddy the then Additional Chief Conservator of Forests. Second note to her mother and the third note to her husband.
• Under Crime 211/2021, for offences punishable under Sections 306, 312, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant, was arrested on 27.03.2021.
• The accused argued that he had no criminal antecedent, was a law-abiding citizen, and was working for the betterment of the forest. His deeds were a part of his official responsibilities.
• The three letters’ contents used as evidence and the accusations contained therein are refuted by additional evidence gathered during the investigation.
• The application is allowed.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

• Prashant Deshpande, his lawyer, filed a bail application on his behalf that the accused argued that he had no criminal antecedent, was a law-abiding citizen, and was working for the betterment of the forest. He claimed in his application that Chavan’s allegations in her suicide note were ambiguous and did not meet the threshold of abetment. His deeds were a part of his official responsibilities. Prima facie, the allegation that the applicant, As Assistant Conservator of Forests, ordered the deceased to go on a rough terrain trek while she was pregnant, By any stretch of the imagination, this implies a responsible intent to cause a miscarriage.
• The contents of the letters, which the prosecution claims were written by Mrs. ‘D’ are taken at face value, even a prima facie inference of suicidal abetment cannot be drawn.
• Even if it is assumed arguendo, that the three letters’ contents will be used as evidence, The accusations contained therein are refuted by additional evidence gathered during the investigation.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

• Despite this, the court noted that if taken at face value, the three letters on which the prosecution is relying do make out a prima facie case of abetment, considering that the applicant is suspended and would not be in a position to influence the witnesses, that the applicant is not a flight risk and that bail cannot be denied as a pre-trial punishment, I’m inclined to believe that a case has been established for granting bail.
• The application is allowed.
• The applicant is released on bail on the condition that he deposit a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties of like amount. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any attempt to contact much less influence, any witness cited in the charge-sheet nor shall the applicant make any attempt but otherwise influence the course of the trial.
• The applicant shall attend every date of hearing scrupulously and shall report at the Sadar Police Station, Nagpur on the second and fourth Saturday of every month. The applicant shall, within 72 hours of release, he should provide his current address and phone numbers to the Investigating Officer, and keep the Investigating Officer informed of any changes. The applicant must hand over his passport to the Investigating Officer if he has any. Without the authorization of the jurisdictional court, the applicant could not leave the country.

The Trial Court has no authority to question the High Court order. Recently this incident took place in Maharashtra after Bombay High Court was observed pulling up a trial court for refusing to release the applicant on bail despite the directions made by the High Court order.

Justice Sarang Kotwal had recently granted bail to the applicant Gulfasha Sheikh on June 18 2021 after the court noted that she had been in jail since November with her 10-month-old child. Despite the directions from Justice Kotwal. The Advocate of applicant Aniket Vagal approached Justice for an urgent hearing after the trial court refused to accept the bail due to which the applicant was not released.

The advocate of applicant Aniket Vagal submitted that the trial court refused to grant bail to the applicant. As the High Court refused to record section 302 of the Indian penal code which was one of the charges of the applicant. Justice termed this as a serious breach of the order. He also said that the trial court should follow the orders given by High Courts and Supreme Court.

He also added that the trial court refused to grant bail to the applicant affected the valuable right of getting bail at the earliest and the applicant also suffered in jail for more period than it was necessary when she has a 10-month-old child with her.

-Report by ANAND PATIL

The Delhi High Court in its judgments dated fifteenth June found that offences below the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) aren’t made out clear against student leaders Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha whale, and Devangana Kalita within the Delhi riots conspiracy case.

In the 3 separate orders delivered permitting the bail applications of Tanha, whale, and Kalita, the court has undertaken a factual examination of the allegations to determine if a prima facie case is formed out against them for the needs of Section 43D(5) of UAPA. However, a judicature bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, once a preliminary analysis of the charge sheet discovered that the allegations don’t represent the alleged UAPA offences concerning terrorist activities(Sections 15,17 and 18). Therefore, the division bench aforesaid that the rigor of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA against the grant of bail wasn’t attracted against the accused, and thus they were entitled to grant of bail below the normal principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

These 3 student leaders have spent over an amount of 1 year in Tihar jail, even amid the 2 deadly waves of the COVID pandemic. The profit of interim bail on account of the pandemic wasn’t on the market to them as they were defendants below the UAPA. After Natasha narwal lost her father Mahavir narwal to COVID last month, the judicature had granted her interim bail for 3 weeks to perform the observance rites.

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

The Supreme Court dismissed the bail application filed by suspended IGP Zahur Haidar Zaidi on Tuesday i.e. on 15 of June 2021, related to the custodial death of an accused in the case of gang rape and murder of a 16-year-old schoolgirl in Shimla in 2017. The Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the bail application of former IGP Zaidi.

Advocate appearing on behalf of the former IGP submitted that there is no case of murder made out against the accused. Only a case of the disappearance of evidence of offence under section 201 IPC is made against him.

The case is related to the custodial death of an accused, who was arrested in a case of alleged gang rape and murder of a sixteen-year-old girl in Shimla in 2017. Haider Zaidi was arrested on 29th August 2017, after CBI probe into the investigation.

-Report by Muskan Chanda

Allahabad HC’s Justice Om Prakash VII on Friday rejected the bail application of Bhadohi MLA Vijay Mishra alias Vijay Kumar Mishra, accused of several cases under several sections of Indian Penal Code and IT Act of Gopiganj Police Station in Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi dist.)

On August 4, 2020, an FIR was lodged by informant Krishan Mohan Tiwari against Ramlali Mishra and Vishnu Mishra, mentioning that applicant is a relative of the informant. After winning the election of block pramukh, he became active in politics. And since 2001, the applicant is alleged to be residing in the informant’s house and is busy with politics and his business without the complete consent of the applicant. He was forcibly residing and threatening and torturing them as he is a relative and presently the elected member of the Legislative assembly from Gyanpur.

The informants’ contractual work was also overtaken by the applicant and started doing all the work along with depositing the money from transactions in the account of his firm and his wife and son. He took possession of all the documents by forcibly getting signed on the cheques and using net banking in the name of the informant. The informant was unaware of all these acts.

The family and informant were threatened with dire consequences as the applicant is a dreaded criminal and the informant was in no position to file a complaint due to threats. The applicant is not only vacating the forcibly occupied house but is also pressuring the informant to execute the will in the name of the applicant’s son. On refusal, threats were extended. Informants’ apprehensions we’re shown in FIR as the applicant is a muscleman. The informant may become landless if the applicant is successful in his acts. A prayer was made to take legal action for securing the life and property of the informant and his family members and was submitted to Chaturvedi, Senior advocate, appearing for the applicant, that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The applicant is a reputed person in the Society and was elected four times as MLA. He was also Block Pramukh and President of Zila Panchayat of District Sant Ravidas Nagar.

Referring to the contents of the FIR, it was further submitted that offence under section 449 IPC is not attracted in this matter. Informant himself has admitted in the FIR that the applicant was residing in the said house with the consent of the informant.

It was further argued that if such was the position, offence of criminal trespass cannot be constituted in this matter. Simply it was a dispute of partnership business which is pure of civil nature. Efficacious remedies will be available to the parties in civil suits/arbitration cases. An appeal against the order passed in the arbitration matter is also pending before the Court. Referring to the copy of the Will deed annexed with the application, it was further argued that there was no occasion to obtain a Will deed in favor of Vishnu Mishra, the son of the applicant. The said Will has not been executed. This fact also shows that offences leveled in the matter are not attracted against the applicant.

A Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant also referred to the statement of the witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC and further argued that the applicant is suffering from several diseases. He is in jail since August 14, 2020, and further argued that in all the previous criminal cases against the applicant, they are either withdrawn or the applicant is acquitted. The pending cases are not heinous and some may be due to political rivalry. Also, the disputed property belongs to the applicant exclusively and the said transactions made were done with the complainant’s consent. The applicant should not be kept behind the bars on the grounds of no of cases lodged against him. As a law-abiding person, he was granted bail in 2013 against a criminal trial going considering the entire criminal cases pending against the applicant up to the year 2013.

But as per Additional Advocate General appearing for State and counsel for the informant, the applicant is an influential person and no one dares to lodge an FIR against him and he’s a participant in several heinous cases. The counsel for the informant also argued that no one dares to provide evidence against the applicant hence he was acquitted. The no of cases was withdrawn due to pressure or influence by the govt. Also, the will feed was being executed in the name of Vishnu Mishra, the applicant’s son, only because of pressure created over the informant, but since he left the Registry office, the deed was not executed. Referring to the counter affidavit, it was further argued that a criminal case for the offence under section 376 IPC is also pending against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will put pressure upon the witnesses. Thus, prayer was made for the rejection of bail.

Thus, having considered the submissions raised across the bar and going through the entire record, and also looking to the nature of allegations leveled against the applicant, the apprehension shown by the informant in the F.I.R. cannot be denied particularly because of criminal antecedents of the applicant.

The Court believes that prayer made for bail in the application is not liable to be allowed and is hereby rejected”, the Court ordered.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava