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 Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Judicial Discretion Must Be Exercised Judiciously, Cautiously: Gujarat High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Lady Accused with Two-Month-Old Child

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment today, the Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to Amanpreet Gurkamalsinh Kaur, a woman accused of multiple offences including those under the Indian Penal Code, the Explosives Act, and the Essential Commodities Act. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar stated, "It is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court."

The court took into account several factors before granting bail. Justice Suthar observed, "I have considered the following aspects: The applicant is a lady accused having a two-months-old child; day-to-day affairs of Noor Enterprise are being managed by the husband of the applicant; nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the applicant; the applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation."

Counsel for the accused, Mr. ND Nanavaty, along with Mr. Ruchit J Vyas, argued that the applicant had not actively participated in any alleged criminal activities and was merely the proprietor of Noor Enterprise. She also has a two-month-old child, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Hardik Mehta, vehemently opposed the bail application, stating that the accused was the proprietor of Noor Enterprise and thus responsible for its activities. He insisted on the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation.

Despite the opposition, Justice Suthar granted bail on specific conditions, including a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and presence at the concerned police station on specified dates. The judge also clarified, "Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant."

The decision references several cases, including the Apex Court's decisions in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), as guidelines for granting anticipatory bail.

Legal analysts state that this decision once again underscores the importance of judicious and cautious use of judicial discretion in bail matters, particularly when it comes to vulnerable sections of society.

Date of Decision:29 September 2023

AMANPREET GURKAMALSINH KAUR vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Latest Legal News