Tag: Indian Penal Code

Accused Can’t “Buy” Bail: Supreme Court Ends Practice of Monetary Undertakings for Release
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Accused Can’t “Buy” Bail: Supreme Court Ends Practice of Monetary Undertakings for Release

This Supreme Court judgment prohibits courts from granting bail based on monetary undertakings or deposits by the accused. It directs that all bail applications must be decided strictly on their own merits, in accordance with law, and not on any extraneous promises of payment. The practice of imposing financial conditions for bail deprecated to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Gajanan Gore, was arrested in August 2023 for allegedly siphoning approximately ₹1.6 crore from his employer, an advertising and training institute. He was charged with various offences including cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. After the Trial Court denied him bail, the Bombay High Court granted him bail in April 2024. This bail was contingent on a ke...
Read More
Can’t Reopen Closed Cases Without New Proof: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling for Sportspersons
23Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Can’t Reopen Closed Cases Without New Proof: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling for Sportspersons

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, ruling the allegations of forgery and cheating did not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 468, or 471 IPC. It held that continuing the prosecution, after prior exoneration by competent authorities without new evidence, constituted a clear abuse of the legal process. Facts Of The Case: In 2022, a private complaint was filed by Nagaraja M.G. alleging that badminton players Chirag Sen and Lakshya Sen, their parents, and their coach, Vimal Kumar, had conspired to falsify the players’ dates of birth to gain illegal entry into age-restricted tournaments. The complaint was based primarily on an alleged 1996 GPF nomination form. Following a magistrate's order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the Bengaluru Police registered an FIR for offences ...
Read More
Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties
23Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but modified the sentence. Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, it held that the enhanced punishment of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, introduced by the 2019 amendment, could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed prior to its enactment. Facts Of The Case: On May 20, 2019, the appellant, Saturam Mandavi, was accused of luring a five-year-old girl to his house and raping her while her parents were away attending a marriage ceremony in the village. The victim's mother, upon returning and being unable to locate her daughter, confronted the appellant at his house, after which he fled. An FIR was subsequently registered against him. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under S...
Read More
Abuse of Legal Process? : Supreme Court Quashes Second Petition , Not Allowed Without New Grounds
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Abuse of Legal Process? : Supreme Court Quashes Second Petition , Not Allowed Without New Grounds

The Supreme Court ruled that a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is impermissible if based on grounds available during the first petition, as it effectively amounts to a review barred under Section 362 CrPC. The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, preventing abuse of legal process through successive petitions. The judgment reaffirmed that change in circumstances or new grounds must be demonstrated for entertaining subsequent quashing petitions, ensuring judicial discipline and preventing harassment via repetitive litigation. The High Court's order allowing a second petition was set aside, restoring the criminal complaint for trial. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute between the appellant, M.C. Ravikumar, and the respon...
Read More
Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, rejecting arguments about discrepancies in prosecution evidence and delay in FIR registration. However, the Court accepted the appellant’s juvenility claim under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, based on school records confirming his age as 16 years at the time of the offense. The sentence was set aside, and the case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, affirming that juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, as per precedents like Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court emphasized that credible prosecutrix testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction in rape cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal against the ...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling : Doubt Over Witness Claims Leads to Acquittal in TN Murder Case
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling : Doubt Over Witness Claims Leads to Acquittal in TN Murder Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, overturning their conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, due to unreliable eyewitness testimonies. The Court emphasized the need for cautious scrutiny of related witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and highlighted improbabilities in their accounts, including the unrealistic timeline of events. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The judgments of the Trial Court and High Court were set aside, underscoring the principle that doubts in prosecution cases must benefit the accused. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the murder of Edison Suvisedha Muthu, a habitual drunkard with a criminal record, including detention under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The prosecution alleged that on 14.04.20...
Read More
Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ends Bitter Divorce Battle: Key Takeaways on Custody & Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, dissolved the marriage between Shivangi Bansal and Sahib Bansal, quashing all pending civil/criminal cases between them and their families. The wife retained custody of their daughter, while the husband secured visitation rights. Mutual undertakings barred future litigation, and an unconditional apology was mandated. Property transfer and police protection were also ordered, ensuring a conclusive settlement. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Shivangi Bansal (wife) and Sahib Bansal (husband), who married in December 2015 and had a daughter in 2016. After marital discord, they separated in October 2018, leading to multiple legal battles across courts in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The wife filed cases under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, and the Domestic V...
Read More
Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case

The Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court, holding that such relief is an "extraordinary remedy" and must not be granted routinely, especially in grave offences. The Court emphasized that concealing material facts (like a vacated injunction order) and witness intimidation vitiate bail. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary due to the accused's non-cooperation and criminal antecedents, violating bail conditions. The ruling reaffirmed strict judicial scrutiny under Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) to prevent miscarriage of justice[ Facts Of The Case: The case involves a property dispute between Nikita Jagganath Shetty (the appellant) and her estranged husband, Vishwajeet Jadhav (respondent No. 4), along with other co-accused. Nikit...
Read More
Supreme Court Slams Bail Order: Shelter Home Superintendent Must Surrender in Sex Exploitation Case
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Bail Order: Shelter Home Superintendent Must Surrender in Sex Exploitation Case

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused-respondent, holding that the High Court's order was cryptic and violated Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act by not hearing the victim. The Court emphasized the gravity of the offences, the accused's influence, and the risk of witness tampering, underscoring the need for reasoned bail orders in serious crimes. The judgment reaffirmed the principles laid down in Shabeen Ahmad and Ajwar, highlighting that bail in heinous offences must consider societal impact and trial integrity. The accused was directed to surrender, with protections ensured for the victims. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by Victim ‘X’ against the order of the Patna High Court granting bail to Respondent No. 2, the former Superintendent of a women’s p...
Read More