Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Supreme Court Grants Pre-arrest Bail to Practicing Lawyer in Dowry Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgement by the Supreme Court of India, a practicing lawyer has been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail in a domestic case involving dowry articles and child custody. The bench, comprised of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal, heard the Special Leave Petition on September 13, 2023.

The Court observed that the “petitioner shall continue to render cooperation with the investigation of the case and shall not misuse the liberty granted by this Court.” This observation underlines the Court’s focus on ensuring that the liberty granted does not lead to obstruction in the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 19 of 2022, registered at the instance of his wife. The case had complexities involving not just dowry articles, which are yet to be returned, but also child custody. Two out of their three children (one adopted) are with the mother, and one is with the petitioner. These family circumstances were considered relevant by the Court in its decision to grant pre-arrest bail.

Regarding the dowry articles, the Court noted that the claims about them are contested. The respondent alleged that the articles were not returned, an assertion that the petitioner refuted.

As per the judgement, the petitioner has been granted pre-arrest bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must continue to cooperate with the case’s investigation.

The case saw representation from both sides with a list of advocates. The petitioner was represented by Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR, among others, while the State of Punjab and the respondent were represented by Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR, and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR, respectively.

This ruling adds to the jurisprudence on the complex and often sensitive issue of granting bail in domestic cases involving dowry and child custody, emphasizing the importance of cooperation with ongoing investigations.

Date of Decision: 13-09-2023

NAVEEN ARYA vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.         

Latest Legal News