Anticipatory Bail - Denial of Protection u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. by High Court

Anticipatory Bail - Denial of Protection u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. by High Court - Bail granted by Apex Court

Anticipatory Bail - Denial of protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the High Court. - Investigation is in progress and the same is yet to be completed - bail granted - Accused shall cooperate with the investigation.

JT 2018 (3) SC 262 : 2018 (3) Scale 262

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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

JANUARY 30, 2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.194/2018

(ARISING FROM SLP (Crl) NO.26 OF 2018)

BHAUSAHEB APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Arpit Rai,Adv.

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by the denial of protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.

3. While issuing notice by order dated 12.01.2018 this Court noted that the appellant had already taken voluntary retirement in the year 2011 and the suicide is of the year 2017. We had requested the learned counsel for the State to get instruction as to the stage of the investigation. Learned counsel for the State submits that the investigation is in progress and the same is yet to be completed.

4. Having gone through the materials made available to the Court and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it is a case where the appellant needs to be given protection on the condition that he would cooperate with the investigation.

5. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of as follows:

In case the appellant is arrested in connection with FIR No. 115/2017 registered at P.S. Rahata, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount. However, this is subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation.

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

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...

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.

Land Acquisition - National Highway - Inadequate Compensation - What is the Remedy [JUDGMENT]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 (1) - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(5) & 3J - What is the remedy of the appellant to redress his grievance regarding inadequate compensation granted for the land acquired - The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators - It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. [Paras 15 – 18]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog