Criminal Law

In this case, anticipatory bail re FIR under S. 306 IPC was rejected by the High Court. However, herein, while issuing notice, Supreme Court granted interim relief of stay of arrest to appellant. He had enjoyed said relief for last more than 3½ yrs. Consequently, held, without making any reflection on merits of matter, order passed by High […]

(A) Charge-sheet submitted by investigating agency which did not have, or, had lost the jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. (B) Even if the investigating agency in question, had jurisdiction or retained its jurisdiction, charge-sheet submitted before court which had no jurisdiction in respect of the offence(s) concerned. Thus, default bail claimed on ground that as

Held, having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct. In that view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, It is further directed that if the appellants

Even after process has been issued against some accused on one date, held, process can still be issued by the Magistrate against some other person against whom there is some material on record, but whose name is not included as accused in the charge-sheet. Lastly, Magistrate or court need not wait till stage of S. 319 CrPC to

Principles reiterated regarding exercise of power under the section. Strong and cogent evidence against person(s) concerned sought to be added as accused under S. 319 is necessary. High court failed to consider even basic principles laid down by five-judge bench ruling in Hardeep Singh, (2014) 3 SCC 92- Penal Code 1860, S 302. Appeal allowed.

In this case, it was to be determined that whether the appellant shared common object to murder the deceased victim. Evidence on record established that all accused persons had come to spot with deadly weapons with intention to kill deceased. All accused had fired on deceased with their firearms, as a result of which deceased

In this case of alleged misappropriation of monies of complainant and others, main allegations are against other co-accused, the only allegation against the appellant is that they have purchased the property. Even from averments s and allegations in the FIR, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case made out against appellants.

Grant of bail under S. 439 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 and, thus, order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Therefore, prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must

Power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases and it is not justified for Court in embarking upon enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR or complaint. Inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction

As per S. 5(m), penetrative sexual assault being committed on victim girl aged four years (below twelve years), held, the same is also “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” punishable under S. 6. Concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below that the accused tried to commit rape on victim girl found to be fully supported by