1) Leading Supreme court judgment laying down procedure for expeditious trial of Criminal cases.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) NO.(S) 1/2017
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Coram: S.A. BOBDE J, L. NAGESWARA RAO J, S. RAVINDRA BHAT J
Dated: April 20, 2021.
1) Supreme Court: Senthil Balaji judgment- Requirement Of Expeditious Trial Must Be Read Into Special Statutes Imposing Stringent Bail Provisions
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024.
Decided On: 26.09.2024
V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Author: Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/1065/2024.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/supreme-court-v-senthil-balaji-judgment.html
The arrest on 23.12.2022 was not on the basis of any additional material discovered in the course of the investigation, but was based on the same material which was within the knowledge of the Investigating Officer at the time of issuance of notice under Section 41A. Such routine arrest without application of mind and due regard to the law amounts to an abuse of power and does not satisfy the requirement of Section 41A(3) Cr.P.C.
{Para 30}
31. To sum up, the Investigating agency has not been able to demonstrate existence of circumstances or supportive material on the basis of which the decision to arrest was taken. Absence of
such circumstances, information or material which is the sine qua non for the decision of arrest reduces the provision a dead letter and renders the arrest illegal.
33. Under the circumstances, and for the reasons supra, the arrest of the petitioners is held to be illegal for breach of mandatory provision under Section 41A Cr.P.C.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2023
Chanda Kochhar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation
CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, & N. R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 6th FEBRUARY, 2024.
Print PageWhen the accused is involved in offences under Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, more than one occasion and when the quantity of the contraband substance viz., heroin is 1.040 Kgs, much above the commercial quantity, then the non-consideration of the provisions under Section 37, NDPS Act, has to be taken as a very serious lapse. In cases of like nature, granting bail solely on the ground mentioned, relying on the decision in Bhawani Singh v. State of Rajasthan3 would not only go against the spirit of the said decision but also would give a wrong message to the society that being a patient of such a disease is a license to indulge in such serious offences with impunity. In the contextual situation it is to be noted that in Bhawani Singh's case the offence(s) involved was not one under the NDPS Act.
We have no hesitation to say that in the above circumstances it can only be held that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are not satisfied and on the sole reason that the accused is a HIV patient, cannot be a reason to enlarge her on bail. Since the impugned order was passed without adhering to the said provision and in view of the rigour thereunder the accused-Smt.X is not entitled to be released on bail, the impugned order invites interference.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 16021/2023
Date of Order: 16.07.2024
The State of Meghalaya Vs. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Citation: MANU/SCOR/87866/2024,
Print Page
