Section 498A IPC | Asking Daughter-In-Law To Do Household Chores Like Washing Clothes & Utensils Does Not Amount To 'Cruelty': Bombay High Court Section 306 IPC | Instigation Can Be Inferred From Continued Harassment, Absence Of Suicide Note No Ground For Discharge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Gift Of Temple Inam Land Void Ab Initio, Incapable Of Government Sanction Or Valid Registration: Supreme Court Section 483 BNSS | Pursuing Parallel Remedies & Suppressing Rejection Of Interim Relief Amounts To Abuse Of Process; Uberrima Fides Essential For Bail: Supreme Court Suit For Possession Simpliciter Not Maintainable When Registered Sale Deed Casts Serious Cloud On Title; Declaration Or Cancellation Mandatory: Supreme Court Representation Of People Act | Private Complaint By Voter Maintainable For False Nomination Affidavit, Section 195 CrPC Bar Inapplicable: Supreme Court Gravity Of Allegations Cannot Eclipse Other Bail Considerations Or Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Detention: Supreme Court Contract Act | Agreement To Sell Not Enforceable Contract Prior To Conveyance Deed; State Can Re-Auction For Price Maximisation: Supreme Court Failure To Consider Incident Video Footage & Section 161 CrPC Witness Statements Vitiates Grant Of Bail: Supreme Court Section 125 CrPC | Adverse Finding Of Adultery Cannot Be Recorded Against Specifically Named Co-Adulterer Without Giving Opportunity Of Hearing: Allahabad High Court Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Pleadings To Correct Typographical Errors Should Be Allowed To Ensure True Facts Are Before Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Major Penalty Of Removal From Service Cannot Be Imposed Without Departmental Inquiry: Bombay High Court Quashes Order Under General Insurance Rules Section 482 CrPC | High Court Cannot Quash FIR When Allegations Of Forgery And Fraud Raise Disputed Questions Of Fact: Delhi High Court Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed In Entirety Merely Because Section 498A IPC Is Not Sustainable Due To Invalid Marriage: Calcutta High Court Section 138 NI Act | Arraigning Company As Accused Imperative To Prosecute Managing Director Or Signatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 14(6) DRC Act | 5-Year Bar On Eviction Inapplicable When Co-Owners Acquire Premises Inter Se Family Through Gift Deed: Delhi High Court Territorial Jurisdiction In Missing Person Cases | Court Can Direct CBI Probe If Journey Commenced Within Its Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Future Prospects Must Be Added In Permanent Disability Cases Even If Functional Disability Is Assessed Liberally: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registration Act | Registering Authority Lacks Power To Refuse Registration On Grounds Of Unapproved Layout Or Lack Of Title: Telangana High Court

Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail and Provides Protection to the Victim

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a recent order , the Supreme Court of India has upheld the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner in a high-profile case. The decision came in response to Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4320-4321/2023, arising from the final judgment and order dated 20th December 2022 in MCRC No. 53324/2022 and 17th February 2023 in MCRC No. 1398/2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Principal Seat in Jabalpur.

 The case involved Durg Vijay Singh, the petitioner, and the State of Madhya Pradesh as respondents. The petitioner had challenged the High Court's order canceling his anticipatory bail, which was granted earlier. The High Court had cited non-cooperation with the investigation and failure to respond to the Investigating Officer's calls as reasons for the cancellation.

 During the proceedings in the Supreme Court, the victim, Siddhi Gupta, appeared through video conferencing and expressed her apprehension about threats to her life. She also requested the Court to allow her to appear in person. Considering the gravity of the situation, the Court permitted Siddhi Gupta to appear in person and present her concerns.

Siddhi Gupta informed the Court that she was currently staying in Varanasi and desired to return there due to a perceived threat from her family members. She expressed her fear of being forcibly taken back to her home against her will. To address her concerns, she requested protection.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the impugned orders passed by the High Court, the Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of anticipatory bail. It noted the petitioner's lack of cooperation with the investigation as observed by the High Court.

Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner to surrender to the concerned police station within two days. However, it provided the petitioner with the opportunity to apply for bail, which would be decided by the appropriate court expeditiously, without being influenced by the observations made in the present order.

Recognizing Siddhi Gupta's apprehension and concern for her safety, the Court ordered the Station House Officer (SHO) at Tilak Marg Police Station in New Delhi to provide her with protection. Additionally, the SHO was instructed to make the necessary arrangements for Siddhi Gupta to travel back to Varanasi, where she currently resides.

To ensure effective coordination, the advocate representing the State of Madhya Pradesh assured the Court that they would coordinate with the concerned SHO at Tilak Marg Police Station in New Delhi and provide a copy of the Court's order to the officer.

 DATE OF DECISION: 30-05-2023

DURG VIJAY SINGHvs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

Latest Legal News