Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Man After One Year in Jail, Bars Social Media Contact with Complainant

08 October 2024 10:32 AM

By: sayum


"Appellant Abhishek must not upload any photos of the complainant or contact her through any medium," ruled the Court, ensuring strict conditions during the bail period. "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including the period of incarceration suffered of nearly one year, we accept the present appeal and direct that the appellant Abhishek will be released on bail during the pendency of the trial."

Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in the case of Abhishek vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 910/2024). The case revolved around charges filed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Court allowed the appellant Abhishek's appeal for bail, setting aside the lower court's order.

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on September 30, 2022, under Crime No. 449/2022. The allegations against Abhishek included offenses punishable under Sections 377 (unnatural offenses), 498A (cruelty by husband), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, as well as Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. These charges were filed following a marital dispute that arose after the appellant had filed for divorce. The complainant, who was known to the appellant before marriage, accused him of various offenses, including the misuse of electronic files, which Abhishek disputed.

The Court examined the legal question of whether the appellant, who had already spent nearly a year in incarceration, should be granted bail while the trial continued. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations but also took into account the length of the appellant’s imprisonment.

In addition to ordering bail, the Court emphasized strict conditions:

Abhishek must submit his passport to the trial court.

He is prohibited from leaving India without permission from the trial court.

He must provide his contact number to the Investigating Officer and ensure his availability during the trial.

Abhishek is barred from contacting the complainant or her family members, either physically or through social media.

He is forbidden from uploading or sharing any photographs of the complainant.

Conclusion and Impact

The Supreme Court granted Abhishek bail while clearly stating that its observations pertained only to the question of bail and would not influence the final determination of the case. The trial will proceed based on the evidence presented, ensuring a fair judicial process.

Date of Decision: October 1, 2024

Abhishek vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

 

Similar News