Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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

 

Latest Legal News