Criminal Law

Bail was granted by High Court on fourth bail application of accused without assigning any reasons. Accused, main conspirator in crime led to killing of one person. Earlier grant of bail to accused by High Court was cancelled by Supreme Court on finding of prima facie material against him. Thereafter, mere examination of principal star […]

There was an allegation of terror funding as the accused allegedly paid levy/ extortion amount to certain terrorist organizations. Sec 43-D (5) proviso entails expression “prima facie true” as in it must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the chain constituting the stated offense unless rebutted or contradicted.

It was brought to the notice of this court that a judgment dated 19.01.21 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Satish v. State of Maharashtra acquitted the accused under section 8 of the POSCO Act 2012 on the ground that the accused had no sexual intent of committing the

In the facts of the present case, the finding recorded by the High Court that the 2nd FIR was not registered immediately, cannot be justified, primarily because the matter relating to 1st FIR was under investigation and it was not for the High Court to have substituted its own opinion in this regard by holding

According to the prosecution, the accused along with other persons operate an organized crime gang in Azamgarh that allegedly commits offenses punishable under Chapters 16, 17, and 22 of the Penal Code. The very purpose of the gang is to make physical and financial gains by committing innumerable crimes of serious nature instilling extreme fear

In the instant case there was a delay in compliance with section 157 of the Code, as the fir was received in the office of the Chief judicial magistrate with a delay of 11 days. Effect of the delay was examined in the case of Jafel Biswas v. State of W.B. (2019) 12 SCC 560

The appellant got a contract for the supply of radar stations when after eight years it was alleged that there were fraud and cheating and the appellant was booked under sections 406,409,420,465,468,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Bail was denied by the session

Held that the allegations made in the FIR are vague that the procedure contained in S. 41 CrPC as adumbrated by the judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, has not been followed before arresting the petitioner. Same taken as a factor for directing the release of the petitioner, a stand-up comedian, on ad

It was held that even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the face value are true, the basic essential ingredients of cheating are missing, as it could not be said that averments in FIR and allegations in the complaint against appellant constituted offenses thereunder, therefore, this case was fit for High Court

The court held that “whereas at the commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a