Niyamskanoon

Posts

Showing posts with the label CrPC 1973

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004)

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) Case Summary Facts It was stated that as a part of retaliatory action to avenge the killing of 56 persons in the Sabarmati Express, an unruly mob burnt down the business named 'Best Bakery' at Vadodara, Gujrat. Zahira was the main eyewitness who lost her family members. She made her statement during the investigation based on which the Chargesheet was filed but she resiled from her statement during the trial. Case History The Trial Court acquitted the accused. She approached the National Human Rights Commission [NHRC] stating that she was turned hostile during the trial because she was threatened by the powerful politicians to not speak against the accused person. Therefore, an SLP under Article 32 was filed by NHRC before the Supreme Court Court. Also, the State, though not up to the mark and with due care, and the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court and one Sahera Banu filed a revision petition before the Hi

Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) Case Summary Facts Ajmal Kasab, a Pakistani national and a member of the terrorist organisation named " Lashkar-e-Taiba", came to India with 9 others. He carried 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks which lasted for four days till 29 Nov 2008 across Mumbai resulting in the death of a total of 175 people with more than 300 injured. After his arrest, he refused to take the services of Indian lawyers and demanded a lawyer from his country. Later on, getting no help from his country, the appellant was convinced to be represented by Indian lawyers. This appeal was raised against the order of the High Court which upheld the conviction order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court relying on the evidences, witnesses and his confessional statement convicted him and sentenced him to death. Contentions of the Appellant's Counsel Fair trial is an essential right of every person, which includes the right to be represe

Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka (2000) Introduction The present appeal was raised against the order of a Special Designated court which withdrew the charges made under TADA, on an application made by Special Public Prosecutor under S.321 of the CrPC. The appellant alleged that the application to withdraw the prosecution was made in lieu of the release of actor Rajkumar who had been abducted by the prime accused Veerappan. Facts Veerappan, a prime accused in various cases under different penal laws for committing offenses such as smuggling of elephants ivory and sandalwood, kidnapping, murder, and so on, abducted a famous actor Rajkumar and 3 others, out of them 1 was escaped and 1 was released. The accused Veerappan put a total of 12 demands before the State Government of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka for the release of Rajkumar and another. Out of the 12 demands, 2 are important for our consideration in this case. The first was to release his associates from Karnataka pris

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 Case Summary Facts An FIR was registered on 23.03.1997 after a statement under S.161 of Crpc made before the Dy. SP by the victim Pushpa in which she stated that the appellants Ajay Kumar Parmar and his father had raped her on 10.03.1997. On an application made by Pushpa, as she was unsatisfied with the investigation of the police, the CJM, Sirohi directed the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj to take her statement under S.164 of the CrPC. The plaintiff in her statement under S.164 before the Judicial Magistrate stated that the FIR and the statement recorded before the Dy. SP was false and no offence had been committed. Therefore the Magistrate acquitted the appellant. Case History The Session Court while allowing the revision petition filed by the Public Prosecutor reversed the order of the Magistrate on two grounds:- Section 342 and 376 of IPC are triable by the Session Court, therefore no Magistrate can acquit the appellant on an

Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2011

Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2011 Facts An FIR was registered by the Motihari Town Police Station on 03.08.2005 against the appellants Mohan Singh, Laxmi Singh and others for the murder of the father (Sureshwar Jha) and brother (Anil Kumar Jha) of the informant Vikas Kumar Jha. The informant in its fardbeyan disclosed that the appellants were known to his family and had made several attempts to extort money from his family earlier by threatening them for which a complaint had been also filed with the police. The informant alleged that the appellants had killed his brother and father for not having paid the extortion money. Accordingly, the charges were framed for the murder of the deceased and criminal conspiracy under S.120B and extortion under S.387 of the IPC. Case History The Session Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for criminal conspiracy to murder under S.120B, IPC and for extortion (S.387) The High Court upheld the conviction order of the Session Court. There

State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) Case Summary Facts The present appeal for the cancellation of bail was raised after the two approvers turned hostile and resiled from their earlier statements. Earlier the respondent was granted anticipatory bail on charges made by the CBI under S.120B read with S.409, S.435, and S.201 of the IPC. It was alleged that the respondent along with other officials and Minister for Information and Broadcasting, V.C. Shukla, had burnt and destroyed the film "Kissa Kursi Ka" in a factory premises of Maruti Ltd, which had to be screened before the Judges of the Supreme Court to decide whether the censor board had rightly refused to grant certificate for exhibition or not. Issue Whether the High Court was right in rejecting the application for cancellation of bail. Ratio Decidendi The Court said rejection of bail and cancellation of bail is different, it is easier to reject a bail application than to cancel a bail granted. T

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 case summary Introduction A very interesting case, where the Court discussed Anticipatory bail which is enshrined in Chapter XXXIII, Section 438 of CRPC, 1973 (Provision of Anticipatory Bail is given under Section 482, Bhartiye Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 ) Facts This appeal was raised by Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, who was a Minister of Irrigation and Power in the Government of Punjab and allegedly committed various political Corruption, against the judgement of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which rejected the anticipatory bail application made under S.438. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court formulated eight-point rules to be considered while granting anticipatory bail. These are- The power under S.438 is extraordinary and shall be used sparingly in exceptional cases only. It shall not be granted as a blanket for offences not yet committed or without any accusations made. All the condi

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, 2012 case study|| Case summary|| Bail Introduction In the present case (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI), the Apex Court has discussed whether the refusal to grant bail and pre-trial detention of the accused infringes on their right to liberty under Article 21. Also this Court by referring to various earlier decisions of this Court pointed out certain matters to be considered by the Court while using their discretion in granting bail in non-bailable offences. What we will learn 1. What are the considerations to be taken by a judge while using his discretion in granting bail in a Non-bailable offence? 2. Whether the refusal to grant bail to an accused and taking him into judicial custody infringes of his personal liberty provided by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Facts This is an appeal under Article 136 against the common order of the Delhi High Court which rejected all the four bail applications filed by the appellants. All the appellants were alleged to hav

Gurucharan Singh and Ors. vs State (Delhi)|| Case Summary Introduction This case famously known as the 'Sundar Murder Case' had discussed the provisions related to bail and also cancellation of bail. Facts The bail granted by the Court of Session in the "Sundar Murder Case" was cancelled by the High Court of Delhi in an appeal made by the State against the order of the Court of Session. Therefore this appeal was made by the appellant under Article 136 of the Constitution. Issue 1. Whether the High Court was right in cancelling the bail order granted by the Court of Session. 2. Whether the Court of Session had considered the requirements before granting bail to the accused. Arguments of the Appellant 1. By pointing out the difference between the wordings of S.497(1) of the old Code of 1898 which used "accused brought before the court" and S.437(1) of CrPC, 1973 which uses "accused brought before a court other than High Court or a Court of Se

State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, 1962 Introduction This landmark case of State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, 1962 deals with S.498 of the old CrPC, 1898 and S.439 of the prevailing CrPC, 1973 which provides a wide power to the High Court and Session Court for granting bail. Facts The respondent was prosecuted under conspiracy (S.120B IPC) and S.3&5 of the Official Secret Act. The allegation was that the respondent (Jagjit Singh) along with two others had disclosed some official secrets to a foreign agency. After an application for bail by the respondent was rejected by the Session Judge, the respondent went to the High Court under S.498 CrPC, 1898 for bail which had been granted on the considerations:- The other two respondents were released on bail. The trial was likely to take a long time. The respondent was not likely to abscond. Therefore the appellant came to this Court through an SLP. Issue Whether the High Court was right in granting bail? Observations The High Cou

State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008 Introduction Although, Chapter V of the CrPC, 1973 deals with the provisions for the "Arrest of Persons", the Code nowhere mentions any provision regarding what constitutes "arrest" or "custody". The Apex Court in this case (State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008) dealt with this issue and tried to give a definite shape as to what constitutes "arrest" and "custody". Facts These appeals were made by the State of Haryana and Lalit Kumar after the Punjab & Haryana High Court made two different views through different benches over a similar issue as to whether a voluntary appearance of the accused before a magistrate for bail and granted bail immediately do constitute arrest or not. The present appeals had been raised over two different cases. In both cases, the plaintiffs applied for appointment as constable drivers under the Haryana Police. A column asking whether the applicants (plaintiffs -

Moti Ram v. State of M.P, 1978 Facts Moti Ram, a poor mason, appealed in the Supreme Court and obtained an order for bail 'to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail on a surety for Rs 10,000. Since the appellant was unable to furnish the surety his brother produced his assets as surety which the Magistrate had rejected as it belonged to other districts. After aggrieved from the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner again approached the Supreme Court, to modify the original order “to the extent the petitioner be released on furnishing surety of Rs 2,000 or on executing a personal bond or pass any direction which may deem fit to the Honourable Court". Issue Whether the order of the Magistrate is justified? Does the Court have power under CRPC, 1973 to enlarge bond without sureties? What criteria should be followed to decide the amount of bail? Can the Court reject a surety on the ground that his estate is situat

Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra (2012) Introduction In the present case, the Supreme Court heard two appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2000 and 789 of 2001) arising against the order of the Bombay High Court which enhanced the punishment of life imprisonment to be hanged till death for the offence of double murder and attempt to murder of two others without properly hearing the accused. Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 places an obligation on the Judge to hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing the sentence. In this case, the Apex Court elaborately discussed the meaning and objects of "hearing" as provided u/s 235(2) CrPC, 1973. Facts The issue raised before this Court is based on the fact that the accused/respondent was convicted for the double murder of Nilesh Bhai Lal Patel and Jayshree and also the attempt to murder of two others. The offence was committed at different times and places. The trial Cour

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 Introduction In this case, the Court is concerned about the misuse of the power given to the police officer to arrest a person against whom reasonable suspicion or ground exists under Section 41 of the CRPC, 1973. Facts This petition was filed under Article 136 (SLP) for an order to grant an anticipatory bail after his earlier application was rejected by the Session Judge and HC. The petitioner was charged under S.498A of IPC and S.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court by taking note of the NCRB report and gravity of arrest under S.498A, made an Order/Direction to prevent the unnecessary arrest and detention of an accused. Observations NCRB "Crime India Report" 2012 :- Rate of chargesheet made under S.498A is 93.6% but conviction rate is only 15%. 6% of total arrest under the IPC was under S.498A. One fourth of the arrest under S 498A are women. Section 498A of IPC, 1860 is a cognizable and non-bailable offence which has become

Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P 2008 Facts of the Case This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court for an order to the officer in charge to take appropriate steps after registering an FIR. The issue arose after a written report submitted by the petitioner before the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station refused to register the FIR. Thereafter when the petitioner moved to the Superintendent of Police, although an FIR was registered no steps were taken either for apprehending the accused or recovery of the minor girl child who had been kidnapped. After taking note of the prevalence of these issues on a large scale nationwide, the judges made an order. The Court Order of May 2008 Through this order, the Court gave notice to the Government of all States and UTs besides their Director of Police/Commissioner of Police that if the FIRs were not registered immediately and a copy was not made thereof:- A complaint can be made to the concerned magistrate who by

D.K Basu V State of West Bengal, 1997 ||Case Summary Introduction In this Case, the Court laid down basic 'requirements' to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention as a measure to prevent Custodial Violence. Court Order The Police Officer shall in cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41 A (1 ) issue notice, directing the person against whom reasonable suspicion exist, to appear before police officer. Every Police Officer while making an arrest shall bear an visible identification as said in Section 41 B (a) of CRPC, 1973 . As given in Section 41(B)(b ) every Police Officer while making an arrest shall prepare a memo of arrest which shall be (i) attested by at least one witness (family member or respectable person), and (ii) countersigned by the person arrested. Arrested person have the right to inform his relatives or friends unless the memorandum is attested by the family of the person arrested as per Section 41(B)(C) The Sta

Bilkis Bano Case|Bilkis Bano Update|Bilkis Bano Judgement This case brief/ summary is written after a detailed analysis of the judgement/ order dated 8.01.2024 of the SC. Overview These appeal arises after a Order of the Government of Gujarat remitted the life sentence of all the convicts after completing 14 years of the sentence. All the convicts were convicted, in the famous case popularly known Bilkis Bano Case, for committing gangrape and murder. This case has dealt the meaning , scope and extent of the power of remission. Constitutional positions of remission under Article 72 and 161 and also remission provided under Section 432 read with Section 433A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been interpreted here. Introduction These writ petitions filed against the Order of Sate of Gujarat which remitted the life sentence of respondents no. 3 to 13 and released them earlier, who were all convicted in committing heinous crime under various sections of Criminal Code during and fe

Search This Blog

Niyamskanoon

Posts

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004)

Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka (2000)

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, 2012

Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, 2011

State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978)

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40

Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 : AIR 1978 SC 179

State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622

State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008

Moti Ram v. State of M.P, 1978

Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

Arnesh Kumar V State of Bihar, 2014

Lalita Kumari V Government of U. P , 2008 & 2013

D. K Basu V State of West Bengal , 1997

Bilkis Yakoob Rasul v. UoI & others, AIR 2022