Vikas Deshmukh & Legal Associates

07/03/2022

11/01/2021

When every man lives without LAW, every man lives without FREEDOM.

ensures and protects , but the content of the can be used to either promote or suppress individual .

08/01/2021

Supreme Court: Charge sheet will not be a ground itself for cancellation of bail and default bail can only be cancelled by Courts on grounds available in law.

The Supreme Court recently held that accused on default bail cannot be arrested merely because charge sheet has been filed,In the instant case, Kamlesh was accused of committing offences u/s 409, 406, 467,468,420, 477A, 471, 120B of IPC and under the provisions of Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act) and u/s 65 of IT Act. His application for default bail was allowed by the High Court but, while granting bail, the Court ruled that he can get re-arrested after Police files the charge sheet.

Mr Kamlesh moved the Supreme Court and challenged the condition that he would get arrested if the charge sheet is filed.

While allowing the appeal, the Bench observed that judgement rendered in Bashir case made it clear that mere filing of charge sheet will not be a ground itself for cancellation of bail and default bail can only be cancelled by Courts on grounds available in law.

In Bashir case, the Apex Court observed that power of Court to cancel bail where necessary is preserved for cases where a person is released on bail u/s 437(1) or (2) and these provisions are also applicable to a person released u/s 167(2). Therefore, as the provisions of Section 437 are also available to persons released u/s 167(2), the mere fact that the charge sheet is filed is not sufficient to re-arrest the accused

The Court allowed the appeal filed by Kamlesh(accused).

Title: Kamlesh Chaudhary v State Of Rajasthan
Case No.:SLP (Crl.) No. 5715/2020
Date of Order: 05.01.2020

07/01/2021

HC: Rejection of Anticipatory Bail is not a ground for not entertaining petition for quashing an FIR


28 Dec 2020

The Allahabad High Court while granting protection from arrest to the petitioner has pointed out that scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is much larger than the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The court has observed that to make out an offence under Section 306 I.P.C., mere allegation or assertion regarding harassment of the deceased does not suffice. In fact for constituting an offence of abetment of sucide under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be a proof of direct or indirect act of incitement leading to commission of su***de.

“Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that petitioner shall not be arrested till the next date of listing, in connection with impugned F.I.R.”

The above direction has passed by Division Bench comprised of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Mrs. Saroj Yadav while dealing with the petition filed by the sister- in-law of deceased to quash the F.I.R. lodged against her under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 306 I.P.C. in Bakshi Ka Talaab, Police Station, District Lucknow.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the sister of the wife of the deceased i.e. his sister-in-law and has been living a married life separately in Sitapur.

It was further submitted that from perusal of the recital made in the impugned F.I.R., in fact the case under Section 306 I.P.C. is not made out in as much as that except general allegation of harassment against the petitioner, there is no specific mention of any act direct or indirect of inciting the deceased to commit su***de.

The counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there are allegations against the petitioner and other family members and it is on account of the harassment meted out to the deceased that he committed su***de. He has further stated that anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner has been rejected by this Court.

The court while granting the interim relief to the petitioner has directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 25222 of 2020

Petitioner :- Nasim Bano

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home,Lko.& Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Deepak Singh, Anilesh Tewari, Manish Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., J Bahadur, S Tabreez, Sheeran Mohiuddin Al

Bench: Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Mrs. Saroj Yadav