Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Gujarat High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Atrocities Act Case, Citing "No Ingredients of Sections 107 or 306 of IPC Made Out"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered on March 7, 2024, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Judge J.C. Doshi, granted anticipatory bail to the appellants in the case of Poonam Anshul Singh vs. State of Gujarat. This decision was made in the backdrop of an FIR filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and concerns raised under Sections 107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court noted, "Even if the FIR is taken as gospel truth, no ingredients of sections 107 or 306 of the IPC are made out." This observation became a pivotal point in the court's decision to grant bail, as it highlighted the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the alleged offenses.

The case, filed with Manjalpur Police Station under FIR No. 11196003230874, involved complex issues surrounding the alleged abetment of suicide. The court referred to several notable judgments, including 'Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka' and 'Kashibai and others Vs. State of Karnataka', to underscore the challenges in proving abetment of suicide and understanding the context of the deceased's actions.

In its detailed analysis, the court observed that the delayed filing of the FIR and the absence of direct allegations against the petitioners in the suicide note were significant considerations. The judgment further reassured, "The appellants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with one surety of like amount," imposing strict conditions to ensure their cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

This decision marks an important development in the jurisprudence of anticipatory bail under the Atrocities Act, particularly concerning the statutory bar operating in such cases. The court, taking cognizance of the 'Prithviraj Chauhan vs Union of India' case, carefully balanced the statutory restrictions with the facts of the case.

In conclusion, the court clarified, "At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellants on bail." This statement underlines the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and unbiased trial, despite its observations and the decision to grant anticipatory bail.

Date of Decision: 7th March 2024

POONAM ANSHUL SINGH VS STATE OF GUJARAT

Similar News