Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Civil-Related Criminal Case, Cites Dispute's Civil Nature

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Mohammed Ali Usmani in a criminal case that arose from a civil dispute. The judgment, delivered on September 27, 2023, by a bench comprising HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, emphasized the prima facie civil nature of the dispute and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner.

Usmani had sought regular bail in FIR No. 51 of 2020, which alleged offenses under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 448, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The dispute originated from a construction agreement involving Horizon Projects Indore Private Limited, where Usmani claimed that he was threatened by the complainant for taking possession of certain flats.

The court noted that the crux of the dispute lay in the civil realm and not within the ambit of criminal law. While the petitioner had been in custody since July 21, 2021, and the trial had commenced with eight witnesses already examined, the court did not express any views on the merits of the case. Instead, considering the extended period of custody and the anticipated duration of the trial, the petitioner was granted bail, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The decision was succinctly summarized in the judgment, stating, "Having regard to the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the fact that the conclusion of trial will take some time, but without expressing any views on merits, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court."

The special leave petition was thus disposed of, and all pending applications were also addressed.

This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal disputes and ensuring that individuals are not unduly detained in cases where the dispute is primarily civil in nature.

Date of Decision: 27-09-2023

MOHAMMED ALI USMANI vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH       

Latest Legal News