Criminal Law

Charging accused and trying them together is warranted under sec 218 but held, there are exceptions to this rule in Ss 219 to 221 and thus if a person falls under these exceptions, then joint trial for the offences which a person is charged with may be conducted. Further held, while applying the principles enunciated […]

There was a delay of one year apart from 90 day’s delay in filing SLP where more than Rs 5 crores involved, authorities, held, must recover it from the officer(s) concerned. Before proceeding with the application, the steps taken by the appellant against the concerned officers and if not done, then an inquiry must be

Directions issued by Supreme Court to take appellant out of jail he is presently lodged in to be transferred to prison of State where marriage ceremony and post-marriage ceremonies of his daughter has to take place and further directed, that on all such days of appellant attending ceremonies, he shall be accompanied by police personnel

Held, not mandatory as per S. 170 and thus anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on the ground that as police were ready to file charge sheet, it was mandatory to arrest appellant-accused. Therefore, if the IO does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she need not be produced in custody.

In this case, accused was charged under special Act (MCOCA) and IPC. Upon failure to obtain bail as per law, accused challenged the Vires of the sections of the special Act under which he was charged and sought quashment of the proceedings before High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. By impugned order by

Set of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India to surmount the discrepancies in criminal trials and set uniformity in the approaches of all session courts.The judgement came on a suo motu case of 2017 related to the “deficiencies and inadequacies” in criminal trials in the country in which it proposed to amend

Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. There is no material to either establish their knowledge on action of their subordinates, or they acted in collusion with each other. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in absence

High Court must set forth its reasons, indicating at least in brief, an application of mind to nature of evidence and findings which have been arrived at. Not doing so, is not consistent with the duty which is cast upon High Court while determing whether leave should be granted to appeal against order of acquittal.

Remission policies may be composite ones referable both to S. 432/S. 433 CrPC and Art. 161 of the Constitution. Remission power exercisable under a particular remission policy whether would be one exercisable: (A) under S. 432/S. 433 CrPC, and/or (B) under Art. 161 of the Constitution, inter alia, depends on: the terms of the remission

Grant of, by High Court under S. 482: It is permissible for High Court to pass an interim order under S. 482 CrPC of the nature impugned herein, in exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, giving at least brief reasons. What is not permissible is the tendency of the courts to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, non-speaking