UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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