No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder 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