Right to Liberty - The Legal Chamber

13Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Political Patronage, Hostile Witnesses, and Fair Trial: Supreme Court Declines to Cancel Bail in High-Profile Murder Case

The Supreme Court held that a coordinate bench cannot modify or relax bail conditions imposed by an earlier bench absent gross error or changed circumstances, emphasizing judicial discipline, finality of orders, and sanctity of verdicts. Cancellation of bail requires proof of breach, not mere apprehension. Trial courts must avoid unwarranted criticism of court-appointed special public prosecutors. Facts Of The Case: The case arises from a murder conspiracy allegation registered on 8th October 2019, wherein Sk. Md. Anisur Rahaman and co-accused were charged under Sections 302/120B IPC and Arms Act for the killing of a political rival. Anisur was arrested on 16th November 2019 and trial commenced before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Tamluk. On 26th February 2021, the West Bengal gover...

Supreme Court on NDPS Bail: Delay and Custody Can’t Override Statutory Bar for Commercial Quantity

3Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court on NDPS Bail: Delay and Custody Can’t Override Statutory Bar for Commercial Quantity

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order, holding it failed to properly apply the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, mandating a reasoned assessment of the accused's involvement, statutory compliance, and the substantial quantity of seized contraband before granting bail. Facts Of The Case: The case involves appeals by the Union of India against two bail orders granted to the respondent, Vigin K. Varghese, by the Bombay High Court. The prosecution, initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, stemmed from the seizure of approximately 50.232 kilograms of cocaine on October 6-7, 2022. The narcotics were found concealed within a consignment of pears imported from South Africa in the name of M...

Arrest Without Written Reason? Supreme Court Says It’s Illegal in Landmark Ruling

21Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Arrest Without Written Reason? Supreme Court Says It’s Illegal in Landmark Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) requires the grounds of arrest to be furnished in writing to the arrestee in a language they understand, without exception, for all offences. Failure to do so renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, subject to a limited exception for certain in-the-moment offences where written grounds must be supplied at least two hours before the remand hearing. Facts Of The Case: On July 7, 2024, a white BMW, allegedly driven at high speed by Mihir Rajesh Shah, collided violently with a scooter from behind in Worli, Mumbai. The impact threw the scooter's male rider to the side and trapped his wife under the front left wheel and bumper of the car. Despite this, the driver allegedly continued driving, draggi...

Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case

27Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Plea of Juvenility Raised Decades After Conviction in Murder Case

This Supreme Court judgment affirms that claims of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction. The Court held that a juvenile offender cannot be detained beyond the statutory maximum period prescribed under the Act, and such excess detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, born on 10th June 1969, was convicted for a murder allegedly committed on 2nd November 1981, when he was approximately 12 years and 5 months old. The trial court, in its 1984 order, recognized his juvenility under the Children Act, 1960 and directed his placement in a children's home instead of prison. Following a reversal of his acquittal by the Supreme Court in 2009, the petitioner absconded and was subsequently arrested...

Supreme Court Upholds Anticipatory Bail Rejection, Stresses Timely Bail Hearings

4Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Anticipatory Bail Rejection, Stresses Timely Bail Hearings

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation may be necessary to establish complicity and intent, even in cases based on documentary evidence. The Court underscored the gravity of allegations involving abuse of official position. It further issued general directions mandating the expeditious disposal of bail applications to uphold the constitutional right to personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21. Facts Of The Case: Based on a complaint concerning fraudulent property transfer, an FIR was registered in 2019 regarding events from 1996. The core allegation was that a sale deed was executed using forged Powers of Attorney, which were purportedly signed by individuals who were already deceased. This sale deed was then used to mutate l...

Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed

16Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed

The Supreme Court ruled that a "life imprisonment" sentence specifying a fixed term of "actual imprisonment without remission" is a determinative sentence. Upon completing that fixed term, the convict is entitled to automatic release and need not apply for remission. Any detention beyond this period violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: Sukhdev Yadav was convicted for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara, alongside Vikas and Vishal Yadav. In 2015, the Delhi High Court, while upholding his life sentence, specifically modified it to "life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission." This fixed-term sentence was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. Sukhdev Yadav completed this mandated 20-year period of actual inc...

Supreme Court Acquits Man: “Confession to Police” Cannot Be Used as Evidence

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Man: “Confession to Police” Cannot Be Used as Evidence

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that a confessional FIR made to a police officer is wholly inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution failed to prove its case with legally admissible evidence, rendering the medical and other evidence insufficient for conviction. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Narayan Yadav, himself lodged an FIR at Korba Kotwali Police Station on 27.09.2019, confessing to the murder of Ram Babu Sharma. In the FIR, he stated that a quarrel ensued at the deceased's residence after the latter made an obscene remark upon seeing a photograph of the appellant's girlfriend. In a fit of rage, the appellant claimed he picked up a vegetable knife and inflicted injuries on the deceased, later also hitting him with...