Anticipatory Bail - De-facto Complainant is Permitted to Withdraw the Amount deposited before the Court [SC Judgment]

Anticipatory Bail - De-facto Complainant is Permitted to Withdraw the Amount deposited before the Court [SC Judgment] | First Law

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 438 - Anticipatory Bail - De-facto complainant has no objection if protection under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. is granted to the accused, in case he is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before the Court - He is only interested in getting his money and does not want to prosecute the accused - Appeal disposed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

[KURIAN JOSEPH] AND [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR] JJ.

JANUARY 30, 2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 195/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP (CRL.) NO.6315 OF 2017)

BIKASH MANNA APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. Application for impleadment is allowed.

3. The appellant approached this Court, aggrieved by the denial of protection under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. by the High Court in connection with FIR No.261 of 2017 dated 02.04.2017.

4. When the matter came up before this Court on 15.09.2017, this Court passed the following order:-

“The petitioner shall take steps to implead the de-facto complainant. On such an application being filed, notice shall be issued to the State as well as to the de-facto complainant.

In connection with FIR No. 261 of 2017, registered at Police Station Domjur, Howrah, West Bengal, in case the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a self-bond, subject to the condition that he shall cooperate with the investigation and also subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs before this Court within six weeks from today. The Registry is directed to keep the abovementioned amount in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit in a nationalised bank, initially for a period of six months, to be renewed from time to time.”

5. The de-facto complainant, represented by Mr. Pijush K. Roy, learned counsel, on instruction, submits that the de-facto complainant has no objection if protection under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. is granted to the appellant, in case he is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before this Court. He further submits that he is only interested in getting his money and does not want to prosecute the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant does not have any objection with regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant.

7. In view of the above circumstances, without going into the various other disputes, we dispose of this appeal as follows:-

i.) The de-facto complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before this Court pursuant to our order dated 15.09.2017, along with the interest accrued.

ii.) In case the appellant is arrested in connection with FIR No.261 of 2017 registered at Police Station Damjur, Howrah, West Bengal, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on his executing a bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand) with two sureties to the like amount. However, this order is subject to the other conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation.

8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog