Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's 'Casual' Grant of Default Bail in Terrorism Case: Emphasizes Gravity of National Security

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today overturned the Delhi High Court's decision to grant default bail to an accused in a terrorism-related case. The apex court, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, criticized the High Court's approach as "casual" in the context of a case involving serious allegations of terrorism and national security.

The case, involving the State of NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, centered around the High Court's application of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, granting default bail to the respondent. The Supreme Court, in its judgement, highlighted the critical nature of the offences, stating, "The matter should not have been taken so lightly," given the accused's alleged involvement in activities with "not only Pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States."

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the distinct provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in extending the investigation period, which the High Court had overlooked. The apex court pointed out that the High Court had erred in applying the provisions of the TADA Act, which were not relevant to this case under the UAPA.

Justice Nath, in the judgement, emphasized the importance of specific reasons, such as pending sanctions and forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports, for extending the investigation period beyond 90 days under the UAPA. He remarked, "Major investigation of the case had been completed... However, for want of remaining sanctions and FSL report, some more time was required for completing the investigation."

Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directing that the respondent be taken into custody forthwith, if not already. This judgement is seen as a reinforcement of the judiciary's stance on the seriousness of cases involving terrorism and the necessity for meticulous judicial scrutiny in such sensitive matters.

Date of Decision: 03 January  2024

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VS RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET  @LOVELY

 

Latest Legal News