Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

Gender No Ground for Bail in Serious Offences: Supreme Court of India Rejects Bail Appeal of Chhattisgarh Deputy Secretary

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today dismissed the bail appeal of Saumya Chaurasia, the Deputy Secretary in the Office of the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, in connection with her arrest under charges of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The apex court, led by Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, upheld the High Court of Chhattisgarh's decision to reject her bail application, stating, "No compelling reason for granting bail observed," as noted in paragraph 30 of the judgment.

The bench criticized the appellant for attempting to mislead the court by presenting incorrect statements in the Special Leave Petition (SLP), aimed at challenging the order of the High Court. The judgment, in paragraph 12, stated, "There was a bold attempt made by and on behalf of the appellant to misrepresent the facts for challenging the impugned order."

Further elaborating on the need for accurate representation in legal proceedings, the judgment emphasized the responsibility of advocates in ensuring the sanctity of legal processes. "It is unbelievable that the battery of lawyers... did not notice the apparent fact that when the chargesheet and cognizance order were not in existence before the High Court when the arguments were concluded and the judgment was reserved, non-consideration of the same by the High Court could not be made the basis for challenging the said order in the SLP before this Court," the court observed in paragraph 13.

The court also discussed the discretion under Section 45 of the PMLA regarding the granting of bail to women, highlighting that the involvement of the appellant in serious offences and the evidence against her did not warrant bail despite her gender. The judgment reads, "There is sufficient evidence collected... to prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant... was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA" (paragraph 25).

This ruling reinforces the importance of integrity and accuracy in legal representations and the need for the legal community to maintain high standards of professionalism, especially when dealing with cases of significant public interest.

The Supreme Court has also imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant, to be deposited before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks. The judgment, in its finality and depth, sets a precedent for future cases involving money laundering and the professional conduct of advocates in India's highest court.

Date of Decision: 14th December 2023

SAUMYA CHAURASIA VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Latest Legal News