June 2024 - The Law Literates

27Jun, 2024

The West Bengal Bar Council has announced that it will observe July 1 as a “Black Day” to protest against three newly introduced criminal laws.

The West Bengal Bar Council has announced that it will observe July 1 as a “Black Day” to protest against three newly introduced criminal laws.

The West Bengal Bar Council has declared July 1 as a “Black Day” in protest against three newly enacted criminal laws. This decision reflects the council’s strong opposition and concerns regarding the implications of these laws on the legal system and the rights of individuals. Members of the legal community will participate in various forms of protest to express their discontent and call for reconsideration of the controversial legislation.

According to the resolution passed at the Council meeting on June 25, 2024, the Members of the Council expressed their unanimous views on three acts:

1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023, and

3) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

They consider these acts to be anti-people, undemocratic, and draconian, which will cause significant hardship to the common people. The Bar Council of West Bengal, finding no other alternative, has decided to vehemently protest against these three anti-people acts, according to an excerpt from the resolution.

25Jun, 2024

Bail Granted – Penetrative sexual assault on Minor Bail The main legal issue is whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the evidence presented

Vishal kumar vs STATE OF HP CRMPM 815/24 21/06/24 [ The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Nege]

[ HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ]

Sections 376, 201 and 34 POCSO ACT Section 4 – Penetrative sexual assault on Minor Bail The main legal issue is whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the evidence presented —The petitioner argues for bail, highlighting the lack of criminal antecedents and asserting that there is no flight risk or potential for interference with the investigation —The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the need to ensure the integrity of the investigation —The court granted bail to the petitioner —The court did not find prima facie evidence of sexual intercourse attributable to the petitioner, as medical and DNA evidence did not corroborate the charges — The court considered the nature and gravity of the charges, the role of the petitioner, and the lack of corroborative expert evidence — The court concluded that the petitioner could be released on bail without risk to the investigation or trial, subject to specific conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation.

Relevant Paras:

13. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the bail petitioner is enlarged on bail in case FIR No. 5/2024 dated 05.01.2024, under Sections 376, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station, District Kangra, subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Special Court, POSCO, Kangra at Dharamshala, having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

(i)Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;
(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever; (iii) Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Courts or any Police Officer.
(iv) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar card, telephone number, email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number if any.
In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent/State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by above observations.

To read the judgment click here:

Vishal Kumar V:s State of Himachal Pradesh Judgment The Law Literates

15Jun, 2024

Sections 420, 306, 34 and 120B IPC Framing of charges Abetment to Suicide Money Dispute Non Payment of Debt – Set Aside

Sharanjit vs State of Punjab CRR 3672/18 07/10/23 [HON’BLE JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH ]

[ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]

Sections 420, 306, 34 and 120B IPC Framing of charges Abetment to Suicide Money Dispute Non Payment of Debt – No evidence on the file that the deceased had either initiated proceedings against the accused for cheating/theft of the cheques during his life-time or had given intimation of the theft of the cheques to his Bank – Merely because the petitioner had availed his legal remedy under section 138 of the NI Act in which the deceased came to be convicted could not amount to abetment or harassment – Charges framed qua the petitioner set aside. [Paras 13, 19 and 20]

To read the judgment click here

Sharanjit Singh V:s State of Punjab judgment P&H High court The Law Literates

13Jun, 2024

Appeal Allowed – Mere fact that rail ticket was not recovered from the dead body- Compensation Granted

RUKMANI vs UNION OF INDIA

FAO 503/17 17/11/23[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

[HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA ]

Railways Act Sections 123 (c)(2) and 124A – Railways Claims Tribunal Act Section 27 Untoward incident Claim for compensation – Mere fact that rail ticket was not recovered from the dead body is hardly of any consequence as deposition of AW-2 is manifestly truthful, ticket was purchased and deceased travelled in the general compartment – Rail ticket might have fallen out of the pockets probably on account of the impact of jerks due to the momentum of the body on its fall on the rail tracks – Dead body was found at a place where the deceased could not have otherwise been, unless he was travelling in the train – Impugned order set aside – Appeal allowed – Appellant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the incident.

FINAL DECISION
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the appellant /claimant has been succeeded in proving by preponderance of probabilities that her deceased husband was a bonafide passenger
travelling in general compartment of Lichhavi Express within the ambit of Section 2 (29) of The Act2 and that he met with an „untoward incident‟ as defined under section 2 (n) read with clause (c) of Section
123 of The Act

3. Mere fact that the rail ticket was not recovered from
the dead body is hardly of any consequence as deposition of AW-2 is manifestly truthful, that the ticket was purchased and the deceased travelled in the general compartment. It is probable that the rail ticket might have fallen out of the pockets probably on account of the impact of jerks due to the momentum of the body on its fall on the rail tracks. Reference can be invited to the decision in Union of India vs Rina Devi4 , wherein it was reiterated that if a dead body is found in the precincts of the Railway Station, there is a presumption that thedeceased was a „bonafide passenger‟. In the instant case, the dead body was found at a place where the deceased could not have otherwise been, unless he was travelling in the train.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned RCT cannot be sustained in law for being perverse, based on erroneous appreciation of evidence on the record and suffering from patent illegality. The same is set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the incident i.e., 19.10.2016 till this date.

To read the Judgment click here

RUKMANI versus UNION OF INDIA judgment The Law Literates

1Jun, 2024

Section 439 CRPC NDPS ACT Section 37 Regular Bail – Alleged that petitioner, along with a co-accused, was involved in the transportation and distribution of intoxicant tablets’ – Involvement in other NDPS cases

PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]

BALJIT vs STATE OF PUNJAB CRMM 63157/23 20/12/23 [ HARPREET JJ ] [

Section 439 CRPC NDPS ACT Section 37 Regular Bail – Alleged that petitioner, along with a co-accused, was involved in the transportation and distribution of intoxicant tablets’ – Involvement in other NDPS cases – Petitioner has been in custody for more than 03 years and 04 months and 11 prosecution witnesses out of 19 are yet to be examined and the trial has not even reached the halfway mark – Without commenting on merits, bail granted. [Paras 5, 6, 10 and 11]

Relevant Paras

5. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to ensure speedy trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last court.
6 . It has further been held in law that if a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The procedure so prescribed must ensure speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. Some amount of denial of personal liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes excessively long, the fairness guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India would come into play and it would prevail over the embargo created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

10. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 03years and 04 months and 11 prosecution witnesses out of 19 are yet to be examined and the trial has not even reached the halfway mark.
11. The present petition seeking regular bail to the petitioner is allowed solely on the ground of long custody already undergone by him and without commenting on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the case pending before the trial Court. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

To read the Judgment click here

BALJIT SINGH @ KALA V:S STATE OF PUNJAB CRM-M_63157_2023_20_12_2023_FINAL_ORDER