Search ResultsTotal No. of Records found: 420

2001 SCCL.COM 200(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2001)Smt. Akhtari Bi Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided on 3/22/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi.Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 21 -- fundamental right -- speedy justice -- prolonged delay in disposal of trials and appeals in criminal cases for no fault of accused confers right to apply for BAIL -- if appeals not disposed of within 5 years, for no fault of the convicts, such convicts may be released on BAIL on conditions deemed fit and proper by Court.

2001 SCCL.COM 206(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2001)Prahlad Singh Bhati Appellant Vs. N.C.T., Delhi & Anr. Respondents, decided on 3/23/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi.Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 437 -- BAIL -- grant of -- in cases where offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life which is triable exclusively by a court of Sessions, the Magistrate may, in his wisdom, refrain to exercise the powers of granting the BAIL and refer the accused to approach the higher courts unless he is fully satisfied that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

2001 SCCL.COM 227(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2001)Uday Mohanlal Acharya Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 3/29/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Honble Mr. Justice U.C. Banerjee and Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Agarwal.Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 167(2) -- proviso -- Indian Penal Code -- Sections 406 and 420 -- Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 -- offences under -- BAIL -- when can an accused be said to have availed of his indefeasible right for being released on BAIL under the Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., if a challan is not filed within the period stipulated thereunder? -- held the accused availed of his right on 17th August, 2000 by filing an application for being released on BAIL and offering therein to furnish the BAIL in question -- by majority, appeal allowed.

2000 SCCL.COM 609(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 741-743 of 2000 etc. Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 271, 273, 283-315, 317-342, 343-372, 373-402 of 2000)Abdul Karim etc. etc. Appellants Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors etc.etc. Respondents, decided on 11/7/2000.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 321 -- applications under Section 321 Cr.P.C. seeking consent of court to withdraw TADA charges to facilitate ultimately the release of accused persons from judicial justody so as to meet Veerappan's demands -- withdrawal from prosecution of any person -- the Special Public Prosecutor must be satisfied, on consideration of all relevant material, that his withdrawal from the prosecution is in the public interest and it will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause injustice -- requirement of law not satisfied hence consent under Section 321 cannot be granted -- order under Section 321 passed by the designated Court at Chennai in the matter of Radio Venkatesan set aside -- appeals allowed.

2000 SCCL.COM 484(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2000 ETC.)M.V.A.L. Quamar Appellant Vs. Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd. & Ors. Respondents, decided on 8/17/2000.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee.Subject Index: Maintainability -- of execution proceedings before High Court of Andhra Pradesh as an executing court -- for enforcing of foreign decree passed by the English Admiralty Court -- by attachment and sale of vessel in question.

2001 SCCL.COM 273(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 507-510 of 2001)Muraleedharan Appellant Vs. State of Kerala Respondent, decided on 4/18/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi.Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 438 -- anticipatory BAIL -- Kerala Abkari Act -- Section 8 -- offence under -- provision in pari materia with Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- offence such for which legislature has imposed stringent restrictions even in regard to grant of regular BAIL -- held, order of Sessions Judge, blessing the appellant with pre-arrest BAIL order on the conclusion that the investigating agency would not be able to collect any material to connect the appellant with the crime, misuse of discretion conferred u/s.438, Cr.P.C. -- appeals dismissed.

2001 SCCL.COM 325(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 599 of 2001 with)Puran Appellant with Shekhar and Another Appellant Vs. Rambilas & Another Respondents and State of Maharashtra & Another Respondents, decided on 5/3/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 439 -- BAIL -- cancellation of -- powers in respect of.

2001 SCCL.COM 450(Case/Appeal No: Review Petition (Crl.) No. 1105 of 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2000)Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath Petitioner/Appellant Vs. State of Assam Respondent, decided on 5/10/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.Subject Index: Death penalty -- question of sentence -- review sought -- on the ground that the petitioner was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence -- held petitioner proved to be major at the time of commission of the offence -- sentence of death cannot be reopened -- review petition dismissed however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to get the benefit under Sections 432, 433 & 433-A, Cr.P.C.

2001 SCCL.COM 488(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 1998)State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Bharat Chaganlal Reghani and others Respondents, decided on 7/11/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi.Subject Index: Contract killing -- Indian Penal Code -- Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 120B, 23, 114 -- Arms Act -- Section 3 r/w Sections 25(1-B)(a), Section 5 r/w Section 27 -- TADA -- Sections 3(2)(I), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5 and 6 -- offences under -- conviction and sentence under.

2001 SCCL.COM 642(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2001)Ram Prakash Pandey Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondents, decided on 8/31/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 437 -- BAIL -- a person who has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with life imprisonment shall not be released on BAIL unless there is no reasonable ground for believing that the person has committed the offence and/or there are special reasons to do so -- at this stage it could not be said that there is reasonable ground for believing that 2nd Respondent has not committed the offence. No special reasons for granting BAIL have been indicated by the High Court -- order of High Court granting BAIL cannot be sustained.

2001 SCCL.COM 668(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 907 Of 2001)State of Madhya Pradesh Appellant Vs. Kajad Respondent, decided on 9/6/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi.Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Section 37 -- grant of BAIL to respondent -- accused ignoring the provision of Section 37 of the Act -- successive BAIL applications are permissible under changed circumstances but without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law -- held the impugned order having been passed in violation of the provisions of the Act by ignoring the mandatory requirements of section 37 and the conditions governing the grant of BAIL under the code of Criminal Procedure and is thus not sustainable.

2001 SCCL.COM 672(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 319-320 of 1996)Harshad S. Mehta and Ors. Appellants Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 9/6/2001.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 --- section 6, 306 and 307 --- Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 --- Section 9 --- interpretation of --- whether the pardon provision as contained i Sections 306 and 307 of the Code apply or not to the proceedings before the Special Court under the Act --- held the Special Court established under the Act is a Court of exclusive jurisdiction. Sections 6 and 7 confer on that court wide powers. It is a court of original criminal jurisdiction and has all the powers of such a court under the Code including those of Sections 306 to 308 --- appeals dismissed.

2001 SCCL.COM 684(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 918-919 of 2001)Joginder Singh Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others Respondents, decided on 9/11/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code -- Sections 326, 325, 324 r/w 34 -- conviction under -- remission of sentence as per notification -- held while applying the period of remission granted by the Government under any remission notification the period during which an accused person was on BAIL cannot be taken into account.

2001 SCCL.COM 706(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 242 of 2001)B.R. Kapur Petitioner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another Respondents, decided on 9/21/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Honble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Honble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal, Honble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.Subject Index: [Ms. J. Jayalalitha's Case] Constitution of India -- Article 164(1) r/w (4) -- Representation of People Act, 1951 -- Section 8 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) -- Indian Penal Code -- Sections 120B and 409 -- offences under -- conviction -- whether a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence and whose conviction has not been suspended pending appeal can be sworn in and can continue to function as the Chief Minister of a State? -- held on the date on which the second respondent was sworn in as Chief Minister she was disqualified, by reason of her convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences of imprisonment of not less than two years, for becoming a member of the legislature under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act -- held a person who is convicted for a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than two years cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State under Article 164(1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such.

2001 SCCL.COM 774(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 245-246 of 2000 (With W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 249, 270, 405, 421, 433-435/2000, 57 and 63-64 of 2001))Narinderjit Singh Sahni and another Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 10/12/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Honble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.Subject Index: A) Constitution of India --- Article 32 petition under Article 32 for infraction of Article 21 --- Criminal Procedure Code --- section 438 --- relief under --- maintainability of the petition under Article 32 and secondly, an order in the nature of an anticipatory BAIL ought to be made available to the petitioners herein by reason of the deprivation of the liberty without there being any sanction of law --- petitioners inside the prison bars --- relieving the petitioners from unnecessary disgrace and harassment would not arise --- court did not agree with the proposition that an accused being involved in large number of criminal cases in different parts of the country, if is not able to be released from custody even on getting BAIL orders in some cases, itself would tantamount to violation of the right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. The object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty by the Executive save in accordance with law, and in conformity with the provisions thereof --- imperative that before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty, the procedure established by law must strictly be followed and must not be departed from, to the disadvantage of the person affected --- it would be a misplaced sympathy of the Court on such white-collared accused persons whose acts of commission and omission has ruined a vast majority of poor citizens of this country --- right of an accused to have speedy trial is now recognised as a right under Article 21 --- the Central Government to evolve certain formula or procedure, so that the accused will not complain of undue harassment on account of protraction of their cases and the persons deceived who have filed complaints, will be satisfied with the early conclusions of the trial. B) Constitution of India --- Article 32 --- maintainability of the petition --- petitioners not entitled to any relief by reason of insufficiency of available material on record as to infraction of Article 21.

2001 SCCL.COM 787(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 2001)Sukhjinder Singh Appellant Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi Respondent, decided on 10/18/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice D.P. Mohapatra and Honble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 136 -- Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 167(2) -- BAIL -- petition filed for release of appelant on BAIL u/s. 167(2), Cr.P.C. -- rejected by Court of Magistrate and ADJ -- also High Court not satisfied that there is any merit in the application -- held no inclination to order release of appellant on BAIL in exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.136 -- open to appellant to file application for regular BAIL -- further criminal case instituted in the Court of the ACJM, Karnal should not continue since the case relating to the same incident is pending in the Sessions Court at Delhi and the same will continue in accordance with law.

2001 SCCL.COM 876(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2001)Shailendra Kumar Appellant Vs. State of Bihar & others Respondents, decided on 11/28/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Sections 309 and 311 -- examination of witnesses -- the presence of investigating officer at the time of trial is must. It is his duty to keep the witnesses present. If there is failure on part of any witness to remain present, it is the duty of the Court to take appropriate action including issuance of BAILable/non-bailable warrants as the case may be -- in a murder trial it is sordid and repulsive matter that without informing the police station officer-in-charge, the matters are proceeded by the Court and by the APP and tried to be disposed of as if the prosecution has not led any evidence -- if there is any negligence, latches or mistakes by not examining material witnesses, the Courts function to render just decision by examining such witnesses at any stage is not, in any way, impaired.

2001 SCCL.COM 884(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of 2001)State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Mrs. Bharati Chandmal Varma @ Ayesha Khan Respondent, decided on 12/4/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas and Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 167(2) -- BAIL -- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 -- Indian Penal Code -- Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 120B and 420 -- offences under -- held accused would be entitled to BAIL, not on the merits of the case, but on account of the default of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within 90 days from the date of the first remand of the respondent.

2001 SCCL.COM 891(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1253 of 2001)Harjeet Singh @ Seeta Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. Respondents, decided on 12/6/2001.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Agarwal.Subject Index: Judicial discipline -- BAIL --for cancellation of the BAIL on the ground of misrepresentation or mis-statement, the matter ought to have been placed before the same Judge -- open to the other Judge of the High Court to sit in appeal against the order passed by co-ordinate bench of the same Court.

2002 SCCL.COM 116(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1407 of 2002)Om Shanker Biyani Appellant Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Calcutta & Ors. Respondents, decided on 2/22/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Honble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.Subject Index: Customs Act -- Section 110 -- Major Port Trusts Act -- Sections 58 and 59 -- Indian Contract Act -- Section 171 -- whether principles which apply to a lien under Section 171 would also apply to the statutory lien under Section 59 -- held the proposition that the BAILee, who exercises a lien, is not entitled to charge rent for storage of goods can never apply to a case where the lien is exercised for non-payment of rent or storage charges.

2002 SCCL.COM 184(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 381 and 382 of 2002)Ram Govind Upadhyay Appellant Vs. Sudarshan Singh & Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/18/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Umesh C. Banerjee and Honble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.Subject Index: Bail -- Grant of BAIL though being a discretionary order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for BAIL bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained -- considerations of grant of BAIL.

2002 SCCL.COM 254(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 535 of 2000 (with Crl. A. Nos. 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541 & 542 of 2000))P. Ramachandra Rao Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 4/16/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Honble Mr. Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, Honble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Honble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju, Honble Mrs. Justi.Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 21 -- Right to Speedy Trial -- A.R. Antulay's case upheld and reaffirmed.

2002 SCCL.COM 448(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2002)K. Varadharaj Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Respondents, decided on 8/19/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice Bisheshwar Prasad Singh.Subject Index: Detention -- when a person is detained under a Detention Act, is it necessary for the detaining authority to take into consideration any BAIL application filed by the detenu and any order passed by a criminal court on the said application as a matter of rule, if it is to be held that such placement of the BAIL application and the order passed thereon is not mandatory in every case then in the facts and circumstances of this case whether such application and orders made thereon ought to have been placed before the detaining authority? -- held placing of the application for BAIL and the order made thereon are not always mandatory and such requirement would depend upon the facts of each case -- in the present case, the fact that the court specifically noted in the BAIL order that the Public Prosecutor had no objection for grant of BAIL therefore the court was inclined to grant BAIL to the appellant -- ought to have been noticed by the detaining authority -- this is a vital fact, non-consideration of this fact vitiates the order of detention -- detention order quashed -- appeal allowed.

2002 SCCL.COM 585(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1087-1088 of 2002)Mahant Chand Nath Yogi & Anr. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 10/24/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Honble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code section 120-B offence under -- Code of Criminal Procedure section 438 anticipatory BAIL whether the anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants could the sustained or not held the judicial discretion exercised in granting anticipatory BAIL is neither perverse nor erroneous based on relevant consideration supported by reasons the High Court committed a manifest and serious error in passing the impugned orders setting aside the anticipatory BAIL granted to the appellants appeals allowed.

2002 SCCL.COM 630(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2002 ETC.)Ram Pratap Yadav Appellant Vs. Mitra Sen Yadav and anr. Respondents, decided on 11/20/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Honble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- prayer for BAIL rejected by Sessions Court -- granted by High Court -- previous conviction for a heinous offence -- the order of the High Court, howsoever brief it may be, should make it appear that the High Court while forming opinion on prayer for BAIL was conscious of the reasons for rejection of prayer for BAIL as assigned by the Session Court -- order of BAIL set aside.

2002 SCCL.COM 680(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1284 of 2002)Satish Sharma and Anr. Appellants Vs. State of Gujarat Respondent, decided on 12/5/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Honble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Raddi.Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 169 -- if at the stage of grant or refusal of anticipatory BAIL certain aspects of the case are consideration but later if the investigation agency files a report under Section 169 Cr. P.C. It is difficult to perceive that such a step would amount to interference with the administration of justice -- observations are neither justified nor called for in the case.

2002 SCCL.COM 714(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 1993)Bijay Kumar Mahanty Appellant Vs. Jadu @ Ram Chandra Sahoo Respondent, decided on 12/13/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.Subject Index: Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Police Officer disregarding the BAIL order arrested a person because case against him is of alleged assault on one of a police official -- the case against the appellant is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt -- held the High Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of contempt of court -- further it is not a fit case where the apology tendered at this belated stage ought to be accepted -- regarding punishment mere sentence of fine would not meet the ends of justice -- appeal dismissed.

2002 SCCL.COM 716(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1312 of 2002)Mansab Ali Appellant Vs. Irsan and Anr. Respondents, decided on 12/13/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Honble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.Subject Index: Bail -- complainant challenging order granting BAIL to the respondent-accused who is alleged to have committed the offence of murder during the BAIL period -- judgment disapproved -- since the Sessions trial in which the accused was enlarged on BAIL is proceeding with expedition and major part of evidence has been recorded, Supreme Court refrained from considering the prayer of complainant for cancellation of BAIL -- left to the judicious discretion of the learned Sessions Judge to continue the BAIL or cancel the same after hearing the counsel for the prosecution and the accused.

2002 SCCL.COM 753(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1346-1247 of 2002 (with CRL. A. Nos. 1348-1349/2002, 1350-1351/2002, 1352 of 2002))M.C. Abraham and another Appellants with A.K. Dhote Appellant with J.F. Salve and another Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and others Respondents, decided on 12/20/2002.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure -- complaint lodged by Provident Commissioner against Directors of MAPL -- despite application for anticipatory BAIL being rejected, appellants were not arrested -- held a person whose petition for grant of anticipatory BAIL has been rejected may or may not be arrested by the investigating officer depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, the background of the accused, the facts disclosed in the course of investigation and other relevant considerations -- there was no justification for the High Court to direct the State to arrest the appellants against whom the first information report was lodged, as it amounted to unjustified interference in the investigation of the case -- appeals allowed.

2003 SCCL.COM 84(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2003 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) 4011 of 2002))Narcotics Control Bureau Appellant Vs. Ghashiram Kanhyalal Solanki and another Respondents, decided on 1/17/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Honble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8(c)/21/25/27/27-A and 29 41 kg. heroin recovered from a room which was in possession of the accused under a leave and licence agreement BAIL granted by the Bombay High Court looking to all the facts and circumstances and the huge recovery, the High Court has not exercised its discretion prudently and in accordance with law BAIL cancelled accused to surrender forthwith.

2003 SCCL.COM 150(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. ......... of 2003 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5352 of 2002)(with Criminal Appeal No....../2003 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5574/2002)(with Criminal Appeal No....../2003 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5711/2002)(with Criminal Appeal No....../2003 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 5708/2002)(with Criminal Appeal No....../2003 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16/2003))Attaurrehman Abdulrehman Kureshi Petitioner Vs. State of Gujarat Respondent, decided on 2/3/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal andHonble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.Subject Index: A) BAIL -- granted in terms of the impugned order of High Court -- their grievance is in respect of some of the conditions and stipulation of automatic cancellation of BAIL without any formal order of the Court -- on the facts and circumstances of the case, the stipulation in the impugned order of automatic cancellation of the BAIL of the appellants is not called for. B) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 -- Sections 3, 10, 13 and 15 -- appellants prosecuted -- according to the State they were in possession of incriminating documents -- appellants stated that they were only attending the meeting of All India Minority Education Board -- the State has not been able to show such adverse incidents of the appellants which may disentitle them to grant BAIL -- the appellants deserve to be enlarged on BAIL.

2003 SCCL.COM 421(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of 2002 etc. (with Crl.A. Nos. 215 of 2003 & 1361/2002))Jameel Ahmed and another etc. Appellants Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 4/30/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: TADA Act -- Section 15 -- confessional statement -- TADA Act, 1987 -- Sections 3(3) and 6(1) -- Indian Penal Code -- Section 120B -- Explosive Substances Act -- Sections 5 and 6 -- conviction and sentence under -- appeal -- held contention that a confessional statement of an accused made under Section 15 the TADA Act can be used only to corroborate other substantive evidence produced by the prosecution cannot be accepted -- the prosecution has produced material which could be treated as evidence generally corroborating Ex. P-126 which in our opinion is sufficient to establish the guilt of A-5 -- the prosecution has failed to produce any corroborative evidence in addition to the confessional statement of A-2 therefore by the standard adopted by us for relying on the confession of A-2 to base a conviction on the co-accused, we find it difficult to uphold the conviction of A-6.

2003 SCCL.COM 433(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 100 of 2002)Kadhar Naina Ushman Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 3/4/2003.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.Subject Index: COFEPOSA -- Section 3(1)(i) -- detention order -- delay in execution of order of detention -- it is well settled that delay in execution of the order of detention would not by itself invalidate the order of detention and would not show that the detaining authority is not serious in detaining the detenu -- held no efforts were made for nearly 3 1/2 months i.e. between 23rd October, 2001 and 7th February, 2002 to apprehend the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondents that any application was filed before the Magistrate either praying for the cancellation of the BAIL or praying that the petitioner shall not be granted exemption from personal appearance since he is evading arrest pursuant to the order of detention -- order of detention quashed.

2003 SCCL.COM 450(Case/Appeal No: Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (C) No. 426 of 2002 (in I.A. No. 6, in C.A. No. 7919 of 2001))In the matter of Anil Panjwani Vs. , decided on 5/5/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Honble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.Subject Index: A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- it is no rule of law, and certainly not a statutory rule that a contemnor cannot be heard unless the contempt is purged -- it would all depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case and the nature of contempt under enquiry which would enable the Court exercising its discretion either way. B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Section 14 -- charge under -- scurrilous attack against an eminent brother judge of ours in this Court made through irresponsible, unfounded and reckless allegations contained in his affidavits filed during the course of proceedings -- contemnor has felt genuinely apologetic, and said so with folded hands regretting all that has happened leading to initiation of proceedings of contempt. He has, during the course of hearing, posed and reposed, expressed and re-expressed his full faith in this Court and tendered apology without any reservation -- also pleaded for permission to withdraw such of the two affidavits filed by him containing the objectionable averments made therein -- in the light of the facts and circumstances enumerated above and particularly the fact that initially he was arrested and sent to jail in connection with this contempt matter where he was lodged for four days before being released on BAIL. These factors, in our view, weigh in favour of accepting the request allowing him to withdraw the objectionable affidavits, rather than to continue with this matter and send him again to jail, though repentant, he is, a little late undoubtedly -- request allowed -- contempt petition disposed of.

2003 SCCL.COM 533(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 885-887 of 2003)Ghanchi Rubina Salimbhai Appellant Vs. Metubha Diwansingh Solanki and others Respondents, decided on 7/24/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B. P. Singh.Subject Index: Bail -- enlarging the accused on BAIL by the High Court without assigning any reason -- accused charged with offences under Sections 302, 395, 397, 147, 149, 436, 427, 188 and 120-B IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act -- since the trial court has assigned reasons for refusing BAIL which includes availability of material to establish prima facie case against the respondent-accused, and looking to the gravity of the offence as also the apprehension of the complainant as to the possibility of interference by the accused with the investigation and threat to the prosecution witnesses in the event of they being enlarged on BAIL, we think it would have been more appropriate if the High Court could have at least briefly indicated the reasons which it though entitled the respondent-accused to BAIL -- the impugned order of the High Court should be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration, bearing in mind the observations made in this order.

2003 SCCL.COM 645(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 1999)Munna Appellant Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Respondent, decided on 8/27/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Honble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.Subject Index: Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 -- Section 19 -- appellant and co-accused Ravi and Rakesh @ Ravi were convicted under Sections 392 /120-B IPC and Section 120-B IPC and were sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the first count and 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the second count. Ravi accused was further convicted under Section 397 IPC and Section 5 of TADA and was sentenced to 7 years R.I. under the first count and 5 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under the second count -- in default of payment of fine under each count, the accused were to undergo 3 months R.I. and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently -- the manner in which the crime was committed and the manner in which the appellant escaped after jumping from the first floor of the house clearly shows that the three witnesses got full opportunity to see and identify him. In these circumstances, there is no reason at all for not placing reliance upon their testimony -- the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and the learned Designated Court rightly convicted and sentenced him -- the conviction and sentence of the appellant, as recorded by the learned Designated Court, is affirmed. The appellant is on BAIL. He shall surrender forthwith to undergo the sentences imposed upon him.

2003 SCCL.COM 666(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 1996 (with Crl. A. No. 1734 of 1996))Augustine Saldanha Appellant Vs. State of Karnataka Respondent, decided on 8/26/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.Subject Index: India Penal Code, 1860 -- Section 302 -- the High Court has analysed the evidence in great detail, and concluded that Trial Courts conclusions were fallacious and based on magnification of trifle and unimportant materials, which in no way affected credibility of prosecution version -- the High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that Augustine Saldanha and Rocky Saldanha were responsible for the death and injury to the deceased and PW1 respectively -- only one blow was given in the dark night. Though it cannot be said as a rule of universal application that whenever one below is given application of Section 302 IPC will be ruled out and that even a single blow delivered with a heavy or dangerous weapon on a vital part of the body would make the offence a murder. On the peculiar facts found in the present case, we feel and clause thirdly of Section 300 cannot be applied. The blow was said to have been delivered with a stick and in a pitch dark night of time in the forest surroundings of the area where it occurred. It could not reasonably be stated with any certainty that the accused chose that vital part of the body to inflict the injury and that the blow was aimed without any of such specific intention could have landed on the head due to so many other circumstances, than due to any positive intention also -- conviction altered -- custodial sentence of eight years would meet ends of justice. His appeal is accordingly allowed to the indicated extent. So far as appellant Rocky Saldanha is concerned, in view of the detailed analysis made by the High Court, we do not find any scope for interference with his conviction or the sentence imposed. His appeal is dismissed. The accused persons who are on BAIL, are directed to surrender to custody to serve remainder of their sentences.

2003 SCCL.COM 693(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1123 of 2003)Union of India and Anr. Appellants Vs. Yusuf Razak Dhanani and Ors. Respondents, decided on 9/9/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: Customs Act, 1962 -- Section 104 -- Code of Criminal Procedure -- Section 438 -- application seeking anticipatory BAIL -- procedure adopted by the High Court was not correct -- while deciding the application for grant of anticipatory BAIL the investigating agency concerned has not been given reasonable time to file its objections, this appeal has to be allowed and the matter be remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration after hearing both the parties -- appeal allowed.

2003 SCCL.COM 696(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 888-891 of 2003)State of Gujarat Appellant Vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh and others Respondents, decided on 9/8/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Honble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.Subject Index: A) Constitution of India -- appeals arise on a certificate granted by the Gujarat High Court under Article 134A read with Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution in the matter of grant of BAIL to the respondents -- appeal treated as proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution -- a ghastly incident took place at about 7.45 a.m. on 27.2.2002 when the Sabarmati Express was stopped near Godhra Railway Station and a coach was set on fire resulting in death of 59 persons injuries to 48 years -- commission of offences under POTA -- BAIL granted by High Court on applications -- held the respondents did not chose to apply for BAIL before the Special Court for offences under POTA and consequently there was no order of refusal of BAIL for offences under the said Act. The learned Single Judge exercising powers under Section 439 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. granted them BAIL. The order of the High Court is clearly without jurisdiction as under the scheme of the Act the accused can only file an appeal against an order of BAIL passed by the Special Court before a Division Bench of the High Court and, therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. B) POTA -- Section 34 -- BAIL -- granting of -- under POTA -- since the respondents have not approached the Special Court for grant of BAIL to them for offences under POTA, they should first invoke the jurisdiction of the said Court which shall dispose of the matter expeditiously without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court and any party feeling aggrieved thereby will have a right to prefer an appeal before the High Court in accordance with Section 34 of POTA.

2003 SCCL.COM 791(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2003)Bharat Chaudhary and another Appellants Vs. State of Bihar and another Respondents, decided on 10/8/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 504, 498A and 406 -- Dowry Prohibition Act -- Sections 3/4 -- accused of -- application for grant of anticipatory BAIL -- rejected by the High Court -- order under challenge -- anticipatory BAIL granted -- no restriction on the power of the courts empowered to grant anticipatory BAIL under Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. -- the duration of anticipation BAIL should be normally limited till the trial court has the necessary material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the material available before it. That is only a restriction in regard to blanket anticipatory BAIL for an unspecified period -- judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh does not support the extreme argument addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent- State that the courts specified in Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. are denuded of their power under the said Section where either the cognizance is taken by the concerned court or charge sheet is filed before the appropriate Court.

2003 SCCL.COM 830(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 1997)M.D., Army Welfare Housing Organisation Appellant Vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. Respondent, decided on 10/8/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Honble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.Subject Index: Arbitration Act, 1940 -- Sections 30 and 33 -- application filed questioning the award -- Held while upholding Claim No. 1 of the award are of the opinion that the award of the arbitrations in relation to Claim No. 2 must be set aside. Consequently, no interest thereupon shall be payable.

2003 SCCL.COM 856(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 119-121 of 1997 (With Crl. A. Nos. 314-316 of 1997))Ramanand Yadav Appellant Vs. Prabhu Nath Jha and others Respondents, decided on 10/31/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 302 read with Section 34 -- the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal. The same is set aside. Respondents are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. As they are on BAIL, they shall surrender forthwith to suffer remainder of the sentence.

2003 SCCL.COM 1033(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 1997)A. Abdul Kaffar Appellant Vs. State of Kerala Respondent, decided on 12/18/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sections 201 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code -- charge under -- conviction -- acquittal under Section 477-A -- if really the appellant had issued a receipt to PW-1 on receiving the money, then the raiding party would have noticed the same because they came immediately after the money was received. Therefore, the only conclusion available on this point is that the receipt was prepared by the appellant after he was released on BAIL and the same is now sought to be utilised as a defence for the money received -- the facts as proved by the prosecution and as accepted by the two courts below including us in this appeal, clearly prove that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under section 477-A IPC also but for some unacceptable reasons, the trial court came to the conclusion that the said offence is not established -- the appellant who is on BAIL shall surrender to the BAIL and serve out the balance of sentence.

2003 SCCL.COM 1052(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 389 of 2002 [With W.P. (Crl.) No. 89/2002, W.P. (Crl.) No. 129/2002, W.P. (Crl.) No. 28/2003 & W.P. (Crl.) No. 48/2003])People's Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. Petitioners Vs. Union of India Respondent, decided on 12/16/2003.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Honble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.Subject Index: Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 -- provisions -- constitutional validity of.

2004 SCCL.COM 88(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2004 (with W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2003))A.C. Razia Appellant Vs. Government of Kerala and others Respondents, decided on 1/12/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Honble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.Subject Index: Writ of habeas corpus issuance of detention of the petitioners husband, P. Mohd. Kutty under the previsions of conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), questioned detention order also challenged in the High Court by way of writ petition filed under Article 226 writ petition dismissed judgment challenged in the Special Leave Petition SLP came to be heard before G.P. Mathur and Rajendra Babu, J. Rajendra Babu allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of detention Mathur, J. held that the Writ Petition and SLP were liable to be dismissed matter placed before three Judge Bench whether there could be due application of mind on the part of the Central Government and proper disposal of the representation in the absence of English translated copies of documents relied on in the detention order? majority opinion delivered by Honble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi on behalf of himself and Honble the Chief Justice A perusal of the detention order would reveal that the statements of Anodiyal Mammu, who was intercepted at the airport and that of the detenu and the statements of all others recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act as well as the subsequent letters retracting from the earlier statements were referred to in the detention order elaborately and exhaustively the contents of the letters received from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the counsel for A. Mammu have also been referred to in paras 10 and 17 the very perusal of the detention order would give a clear picture of the incriminating material relied upon by the detaining authority. In the circumstances, to insist on the perusal of original or true copies of statements and other documents referred to in the detention order would amount to insisting on an empty formality. The constitutional guarantee does not go to that extent thus, the only contention raised before us touching on the validity of detention order has to be negatived. The writ petition and Criminal Appeal are therefore dismissed.

2004 SCCL.COM 40(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 1997 (With Crl. A. No. 657 of 1997))Hem Raj Appellant Vs. Raja Ram and others Respondents, decided on 1/22/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 114 -- conviction and sentence -- findings reversed by the High Court -- the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the conviction and sentence are flimsy, untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence -- the reasons given by the High Court in reversing the conviction are not tenable or justifiable -- the prosecution successfully proved that the accused Raja Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar fired bullets at Mota Ram and caused his death -- exhortation made to kill the deceased Mota Ram is attributed to him and that by itself is not a strong evidence to prove his complicity -- accused Raja Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar are convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The accused Hari Padam is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. The accused Raja Ram and Pappu @ Raj Kumar are directed to surrender to their BAIL bonds.

2004 SCCL.COM 47(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2004)Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent, decided on 1/16/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.Subject Index: Bail -- granted -- cancellation of -- when a person to whom BAIL has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, BAIL granted can be cancelled. Rejection of BAIL stands on one footing, but cancellation of BAIL is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to -- the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for passing the order of cancellation of BAIL granted earlier -- no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed -- the trial was in progress when BAIL was cancelled. It would be appropriate if the trial Court completes the trial as early as practicable, if not already completed, keeping in view the mandate of Section 309 of the Code. If appellant makes any fresh application for BAIL, the same, it goes without saying, shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

2004 SCCL.COM 70(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2004 SLP (Crl.) No. 4810 of 2003)Sanjay Bhagwani Appellant Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi Respondent, decided on 1/12/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Honble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.Subject Index: Bail -- anticipatory granting of -- when the dispute with the husband could not be resolved, she, taking all ornaments and clothes, came back with her uncle and brother to her parents' house -- the appellant is entitled to be granted anticipatory BAIL.

2004 SCCL.COM 87(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2004)Omar Usman Chamadia. Appellant Vs. Abdul and Anr. Respondents, decided on 2/4/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: Bail -- refused by the sessions court -- granted by the High Court -- without assigning any reason why a BAIL refused by the Sessions Court by a reasoned order should be reversed by the High Court, it proceeded to allow the application by imposing certain conditions. It is against the said order of the High Court, the appellant, who is a complainant in this case, has preferred this appeal seeking the cancellation of the BAIL -- this is a fit case in which the BAIL granted to the first respondent by the High Court should be cancelled -- the need for delivering a reasoned order is a requirement of law which has to be complied with in all appealable orders.

2004 SCCL.COM 120(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2004)Biman Chatterjee Appellant Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee and another Respondents, decided on 2/10/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- section 498A -- complaint under -- grant of BAIL on the assurance of compromise -- cancellation of BAIL -- the High Court was not justified in cancelling the BAIL on the ground that the appellant had violated the terms of the compromise --no compromise -- non-fulfilment of the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a BAIL -- what the court has to bear in mind while granting BAIL is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code -- having granted the BAIL under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of BAIL in the said provision of law.

2004 SCCL.COM 162(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 853 of 1997)Vimla Appellant Vs. State of Rajasthan Respondent, decided on 2/11/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- sections 302, 120 B 380 and 460 -- murder of landlady -- both husband and wife sentenced for varying period of imprisonment maximum of which was life imprisonment -- conviction and sentence of husband has become final -- appellant enlarged on BAIL -- the courts below have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant.

2004 SCCL.COM 177(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (CRL). No. 2527 of 2003 (With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2528 of 2003)Mandata Singh Petitioner Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Respondents, decided on 2/17/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.Subject Index: Bail -- granting of FIRs filed against the petitioner -- he had already undergone more than 14 months of imprisonment as under trial prisoner and therefore he should be shown mercy and released on BAIL -- on 6.10.2003 granted BAIL temporarily to the petitioner for a period of four months subject to his furnishing a BAIL bond in an amount of Rs. 10,000/- -- it was made clear in the order that if the petitioner misuses the liberty given to him his BAIL application would be liable to be cancelled. The case was ordered to be listed after 14 weeks -- temporary BAIL granted cancelled -- trial Court is directed to dispose of the case without granting any adjournments of long duration. The case should be disposed of expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months and if need be by taking up the case on day to day basis. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the accusation of petitioner.

2004 SCCL.COM 227(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2004)Union of India Appellant Vs. Mahaboob Alam Respondent, decided on 2/27/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- granting of BAIL -- to the repeat offender -- no application of mind by the learned judge -- not a case in which the High Court ought to have enlarged the respondent on BAIL.

2004 SCCL.COM 255(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2004)Customs, New Delhi Appellant Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira Respondent, decided on 3/11/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- section 37 -- granting of BAIL -- customs authorities recovered huge quantity of 'Diazepam' tablets from the accused -- High Court granted BAIL -- as no material placed to show that it was Psychotropic substance -- the report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory was brought to the notice of the High Court. The same was lightly brushed aside without any justifiable reason -- the grant of BAIL to the accused was not called for. The impugned order granting BAIL is set aside and the BAIL granted is cancelled.

2004 SCCL.COM 263(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2004)Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Appellant Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another Respondents, decided on 3/12/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of BAIL the court entertaining such subsequent BAIL applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier BAIL applications were rejected -- the court also has a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications -- the High Court was not justified in granting BAIL to the first respondent on the ground that he has been in custody for a period of 3 years or that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, without taking into consideration the other factors.

2004 SCCL.COM 277(Case/Appeal No: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4773 of 2003)Moulvi Hussain Ibrahim Umarji Petitioner Vs. State of Gujarat Respondent, decided on 3/17/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar and Honble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- petitioner arrested in connection with incident when Sabarmati Express was stopped near Godhra and a Coach was set on fire resulting in death of 59 persons and serious injuries to 48 others -- petitioner charged for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 337, 338, 435, 186, 120(b), 153(a), 302, 307, 395, 397 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) and Section 3(3) of the POTA, and Sections 141, 151 and 152 of the Indian Railways Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act -- not fit case where petitioner may be released on BAIL.

2004 SCCL.COM 1000(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos.1265-66 of 2004)Arvind Mohan Johari & Another Appellants Vs. State of U.P. and Another Respondents, decided on 11/3/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.Subject Index: Cheating -- forgery etc. various offences committed -- request for BAIL -- no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the Appellants in continued detention -- all endeavours should be made to realise as much amount as possible from the personal and other assets of the Appellants by putting them on sale or otherwise -- all Courts, Tribunals and Statutory Authority are hereby directed to produce all documents and papers which are in their power and possession in accordance with law, as and when called for by the learned Company Judge or the Presiding Officer(s) appointed in terms of this order -- it would be open to the learned Company Judge to avail the services of official liquidator as also lawyers and their remuneration may be fixed by the learned Company Judge which would be realized from the assets of the Appellants.

2004 SCCL.COM 318(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2004)Narcotics Control Bureau Appellant Vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade Respondent, decided on 3/18/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- Section 37 -- BAIL granting of -- in the case at hand the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 and transgressed the limitations statutorily imposed in allowing BAIL. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act -- Mere non-compliance of the order passed for supply of copies, if any, cannot as in the instant case entitle an accused to get BAIL notwithstanding prohibitions contained in Section 37.

2004 SCCL.COM 364(Case/Appeal No: SLP (Crl.) No. 5534 of 2003)Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani @ Janani and another Petitioners Vs. State through Inspector of Police Respondent, decided on 2/26/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikirshna.Subject Index: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 -- sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 - and 37 -- BAIL -- denied -- appeal -- appellants accused under sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25 -- alleged violation of section 42 -- having regard to the special facts of the case, the appellants be released on BAIL.

2004 SCCL.COM 453(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 316 of 1998 (With Crl. A. Nos. 317, 318, 332 and 396 of 1998))Daroga Singh and Ors. Appellants Vs. B.K. Pandey Respondent, decided on 4/13/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.Subject Index: Contempt proceedings -- High Court decided to proceed in a summary manner -- the High Court found only those contemners guilty against whom the element of doubt was completely eliminated -- contemners against whom there was single identification were also given the benefit of doubt -- incidents which undermine the dignity of the courts should be condemned and dealt with swiftly. When a judge is attacked and assaulted in his court room and chambers by persons on which shoulders lay the obligation of maintaining law and order and protecting the citizen against any unlawful act needs to be condemned in the severest of terms -- it is unfortunate that neither the criminal proceedings nor the disciplinary proceedings or the inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act have been concluded. No doubt the appellants had been suspended initially but in due course they have been reinstated. Some of them have retired as well. Inaction on the part of the authorities resulted in emboldening others to commit similar acts -- it is unfortunate that in one of the largest constitutional democracies of the world the police has not been able to change its that trait of hostility -- the disciplinary authorities before whom the disciplinary proceedings are pending and the criminal Courts before whom the prosecutions are pending against the appellants to conclude the proceedings and the trial at the earliest.

2004 SCCL.COM 489(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2004)Raj Kumar Jain and Anr. Appellants Vs. Kundan Jain and Anr. Respondents, decided on 4/29/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: Bail -- anticipatory BAIL -- granted -- cancellation of -- the High Court was not justified in cancelling the BAIL granted.

2004 SCCL.COM 507(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 446-449 of 2004 (with Crl. A. Nos. 450-452 of 2004))Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another Appellants Vs. State of Gujarat and others Respondents, decided on 4/12/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.Subject Index: Best Bakery Case -- witness Protection -- quality and credibility of evidence -- improper conduct of trial by the Public Prosecutor -- day to day trial mandate of section 309 of the Code -- trial to be completed by December, 2004 -- keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the ample evidence on record, glaringly demonstrating subversion of justice delivery system and with no congeal and conductive atmosphere still prevailing, we direct that the re-trial shall be done by a Court under the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court. The Chief Justice of the said High Court is requested to fix up a Court of Competent jurisdiction -- the State Government to appoint another Public Prosecutor and it shall be open to the affected persons to suggest any name which may also be taken into account in the decision to so appoint. Though the witnesses or the victims do not have any choice in the normal course to have a say in the matter of appointment of a Public Prosecutor in view of the unusual factors noticed in this case, to accord such liberties to the complainants party, would be appropriate.

2004 SCCL.COM 512(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 46 of 2004)Vijay Shekhar & Anr. Appellants Vs. Union of India and Ors. Respondents, decided on 4/27/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Honble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 32 -- petition under -- validity of the complaint filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.10, Ahmedabad in a complaint filed by the said Suresh Kumar Jethalal Sanghvi under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(1) and 114 IPC against 4 persons named therein and consequential BAILable warrants issued against the said persons by the said court -- the complaint in question is a product of fraud and a total abuse of the process of court. There is also serious doubt whether the procedure required under the Code of Criminal Procedure was really followed by the Magistrate at all while taking cognizance of the offence alleged -- a fraudulent act even in judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to stand -- the complaint filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10 at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 118 of 2004 dated 15.1.2004 is ex facie an act of fraud by a fictitious person, and an abuse of the process court, every and any action taken pursuant to the said complaint gets vitiated -- the complaint registered before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10 at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 118 of 2004 dated 15.1.2004 and all actions taken thereon including the issuance of BAILable warrants is liable to be declared ab initio void, hence, liable to be set aside.

2004 SCCL.COM 584(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. of 2004 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2603 of 2003))N.C.B. Trivandrarum Petitioner Vs. Jalaluddin A. Respondent, decided on 4/22/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 -- Section 37 -- prosecution for possessing 790 grams of heroin -- commercial quantity -- application for grant of BAIL rejected by the Sessions Court -- High Court granted the BAIL -- impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained -- the impugned order of the High Court granting BAIL to the respondent cannot be sustained -- remand the matter back to the High Court to consider the BAIL application of the respondent bearing in mind the restrictions found in Section 37 of the Act.

2004 SCCL.COM 586(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 613 of 2003)Manish Kumar Appellant Vs. State of M.P. Respondent, decided on 4/21/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.G.Balakrishnan and Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 -- Sections 8/21, 42 and 50 -- 750 milligrams of smack recovered from the appellant -- found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge -- the appellant had also no case that he was in the habit of using the drug and he kept in his possession for his personal consumption. When questioned under section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant completely denied the recovery of the drug from him -- the appellant was granted BAIL by this Court and the appellant is directed to surrender his BAIL bonds within 3 weeks failing which the Special Judge will take appropriate steps to arrest him to undergo remaining period of sentence.

2004 SCCL.COM 588(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1337 of 2002)Satyapalan Appellant Vs. State of Kerala and another Respondents, decided on 4/21/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.Subject Index: A) NDPS Act, 1985 -- proviso to Section 41 of NDPS (Amendment) Act, 2001 -- Section 21(a) -- small quantity -- the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 21(a) of the NDPS Act. The learned Single Judge was perfectly right in holding that amended section 21 has no application as the appeal was still pending and in view of the proviso to section 41 of the Act 9/2001 -- the appeal is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant in this case was released on BAIL by this Court. The appellant is directed to surrender to his BAIL bonds within 3 weeks failing which the Special Judge will take appropriate steps to arrest him to undergo the remaining period of sentence. B) NDPS Act, 1985 -- Section 42 -- violation of -- even though the information must have been to the effect that the appellant was selling brown sugar at his house, he, in fact, was found at the pathway leading to his house and thereafter his body was searched. PW-3 had no occasion to search any building, conveyance or enclosed place so as to attract section 42 of the Act.

2004 SCCL.COM 609(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 715-716 of 2004)State of Haryana Appellant Vs. Hasmat Respondent, decided on 7/26/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- section 389 -- grant of BAIL by Punjab & Haryana High Court questioned -- the High Court by the impugned order granted BAIL primarily on the ground that after the conviction the accused respondent had been granted parole on three occasions and there was no allegation of any misuse of liberty during the period of parole -- the requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL should not be passed as a matter of routine -- the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.

2004 SCCL.COM 713(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 2004)Chaman Lal Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondents, decided on 8/16/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.Subject Index: Bail -- grant of -- challenged in two appeal -- at the stage of granting BAIL a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting BAIL some reasons for prima facie concluding why BAIL was being granted is not required to be indicated -- the cryptic non-reasoned order of the High Court, is clearly indefensible.

2004 SCCL.COM 739(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2004)Omwati Appellant Vs. State of U.P. and another Respondents, decided on 1/30/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar.Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- section 390 -- when appeal against acquittal heard, appellant complainant not present -- BAILable warrant issued by High Court -- the State Counsel should have pointed it out to the Court about the nature of the matter and the propriety of issuing BAILable or non-bailable warrants against the complainant appellant. The unfurtunate sequel of such unmindful orders has been that the appellant was taken into custody and had to remain in jail for some time, maybe for a few days, but without any justification whatsoever. She suffered in view of the total non-application of mind at the stage of passing of the two impugned orders. Some degree of care is supposed to be taken before passing an order of issue of warrants, BAILable or non-bailable. Such orders cannot stand.

2004 SCCL.COM 750(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 2004)State of Maharashtra Appellant Vs. Sitaram Popat Vetal and another Respondents, decided on 8/23/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- whether legal? false cases foisted because of political rivalry -- at the stage of granting BAIL a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting BAIL some reasons for prima facie concluding why BAIL was being granted is not required to be indicated -- even though criminal antecedents are always not determinative of the question whether BAIL is to be granted, yet their relevance cannot be totally ignored -- the grant of BAIL to the respondents does not appear to be in order.

2004 SCCL.COM 762(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2004)Nirmal Jeet Kaur Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Respondents, decided on 9/1/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Honble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code -- Section 438 -- protection to respondent No.2 assailed by the appellant -- as observed in Salauddins case the protection in terms of Section 438 is for a limited duration during which the regular Court has to be moved for BAIL. Obviously, such BAIL is BAIL in terms of Section 439 of the Code, mandating the applicant to be in custody. Otherwise, the distinction between orders under Sections 438 and 439 shall be rendered meaningless and redundant -- if the protective umbrella of Section 438 is extended beyond what was laid down in Salauddins case (supra) the result would be clear bypassing of what is mandated in Section 439 regarding custody. In other words, till the applicant avails remedies upto higher Courts, the requirements of Section 439 become dead letter. No part of a statute can be rendered redundant in that manner -- the protection given to the respondent no.2 by the High Court while the application under Section 439 of the Code is pending is clearly unsustainable. Respondent no.2 would surrender to custody as required in law so that his application under Section 439 of the Code can be taken for disposal.

2004 SCCL.COM 781(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 936 of 2004)Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Appellant Vs. State of West Bengal and another Respondents, decided on 8/25/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Honble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.Subject Index: Bail -- granted by trial court -- cancelled by High Court -- the trial court after looking into the case diary and other material produced before it and also noticing the fact that investigating agency had only sought judicial remand, and the argument of the possibility of accused tampering with the evidence still taking into consideration the age and ailments of the accused appellant granted BAIL on stringent condition -- High Court has approached the case as if it is an appeal against the conviction by giving findings on factual issues which are yet to be decided -- the respondent has not made out a case for cancellation of the BAIL and the High Court has erred in doing so.

2004 SCCL.COM 817(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6973-6975 of 2000 (with C.A. Nos. 1013-1017 of 2002) (with C.A. Nos. 6976-7026, 7028-7038, 7461-7465/2000, 177-269, 7923-7924/2001, 4293, 4878 of 2002 and 1013-1017/2002, 2122, 2544, 2717-2718, 2958, 3339-3348, 3429-32, 3378-3380, 4008-09, 3996-4002, 3589-3591, 3567, 3777-3785, 3790-3796, 3962-64 4191, 4062-63, 4666-4671,4479-80, 4673-4682, 4732-36, 4691-4731, 4737-4742, 5479-88, 6088-89, 5207, 5489-94, 5496-5502, 6611, 7243, 7454/2001, 466-470, 3475, 5073-77, 7399-7400/2002, 469-470/2003, 5867, 5868, 5869, 5870, 5871-5875, 5876, 5877, 5878, 5879/2004))Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Appellant and Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune Appellant Vs. C.I.T., Kolhapur and other Respondents and Shri Chatrapati Sahakari Shakar Karkhana Ltd. Respondent, decided on 9/8/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal and Honble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.Subject Index: Income Tax Act -- whether compulsory deductions made by sugar cooperative societies on account of non-refundable and refundable deposits and other Funds are revenue receipts liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act.

2004 SCCL.COM 828(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 1999)Union of India and another Appellants Vs. The State of Assam Respondent, decided on 9/10/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Honble Mr. Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar.Subject Index: Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 -- Section 438 -- whether an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be filed in respect of offences contemplated under the provisions of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 -- Single Judge held that the offences were BAILable after referring to Section 8 of the Act. A review application was filed for suitable modification on the ground that Section 8 of the Act has not been properly analysed -- the High Court was not justified in holding that all the offences under the Act are BAILable. Such view is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act -- Learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in holding that since the offences have been specifically made BAILable under the Act, they are BAILable. The conclusion is indefensible.

2004 SCCL.COM 844(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1030-1031 of 2004)Jagtar Singh and another Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and others Respondents, decided on 9/17/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 120B and 420 -- a criminal complaint of cheating and conspiracy filed against the appellants and Nanak Chand, the father of one of the complainants -- Nanak Chand filed an application for grant of anticipatory BAIL -- also offered to deposit Rs. 5.82 lacs to show his bona fides -- in the event of settlement the amount will be paid to the complainants -- dispute arose -- in the interest of justice, the amount will be kept in interest bearing deposit till appropriate orders.

2004 SCCL.COM 864(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1067 of 2004)Kishori Lal Appellant Vs. Kishori Lal Appellant, decided on 9/23/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Honble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.Subject Index: Bail -- legality of grant of BAIL called in question -- an application under section 389 of Cr.P.C. filed in the appeal with the prayer that execution of substantive sentence of imprisonment for life and fine the suspended -- the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of BAIL is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.

2004 SCCL.COM 903(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 69 of 2004)T.P. Moideen Koya Petitioner Vs. Government of Kerala and others Respondents, decided on 9/30/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Honble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.Subject Index: COFEPOSA -- Sections 3(i)(iv) -- detention of the petitioner under section 3(i)(iv) -- setting aside -- the petition under Art. 32 filed -- a detention order which has been validly passed cannot be rendered invalid on account of the own conduct of the detenu of absconding and evading service -- this is not a case where the petitioner may have been taken into custody in connection with some serious criminal case where there may be no immediate possibility of his getting BAIL -- even on merits, the ground urged in support of the writ petition has no substance.

2004 SCCL.COM 963(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 1999)State of Karnataka Appellant Vs. Papanaika and others Respondents, decided on 10/14/2004.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 324 -- conviction -- acquittal by High Court -- appeal against acquittal -- there is no two opinion that the High Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a conclusion independently but the conclusion which is arrived at by the High Court should be rational and proper appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses. In the present case, the High Court has not examined the statement of the witnesses and just on a bald statement that when the prosecution version has been accepted in full and the witnesses have tendency to over implicate, then what is the guarantee that other part is also true -- Division Bench has disbelieved the entire prosecution evidence. This approach of the High Court is not correct. There should be proper appreciation of evidence and finding has to be recorded against each witness as to why the said witness is not being believed when he was believed by the trial court -- The accused persons who are on BAIL, their BAIL bonds are cancelled and they shall surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining sentence within one month.

2004 SCCL.COM 1007(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1269 of 2004)Sompal Singh Appellant Vs. Sunil Rathi and Anr. Respondents, decided on 11/3/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Honble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 404, 504 and 506 -- granting of BAIL under -- appeal -- in all civil and criminal matters, the Supreme Court is the highest and the ultimate Court of appeal -- in the hierarchical judicial system, it is not for any Court to tell a superior Court as to how a matter should be decided when an appeal is taken against its decision to that superior Court. Such a course would be subversive of judicial discipline on the bedrock of which the judicial system is founded and finality is attached and orders are obeyed -- the appeal is allowed and the order dated 27.5.2004 granting BAIL to Sunil Rathi (respondent no.1) is set aside.

2004 SCCL.COM 1110(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6622 of 2003 (with C.A. No. 6750 of 2003))Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar Appellant Vs. Shri Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar and others Respondents, decided on 12/15/2004.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 -- section 116A -- statutory appeals filed under -- section 81 (3) 83(1)(a)(c) and 83(2) -- non-compliance of the mandatory provisions -- whether the returned candidates proved that the election petitions were liable to be rejected under section 81(1) read with section 86 of the Act by reason of it being barred by limitation? -- whether the returned candidates proved that the election petitions were liable to be rejected in limine under section 86 of the Act by reason of its non-compliance of sections 81(3), 83(1)(a)(c) and 83(2) of the Act? -- whether the respondent No.1 proved that the election petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 86 of the Act by reason of non-disclosure of any cause of action? -- under section 116A of the Act the Supreme Court is conferred with power not only to decide an appeal filed under this section on a question of law but it would also be open to the Supreme Court to decide the appeal on facts as well -- in any event, there has been substantial compliance of the requirements of law -- the Appeals should be allowed and the matter be remitted to the High Court for determining the dispute on merits.

2005 SCCL.COM 18(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2005)Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Appellant Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Respondent, decided on 1/10/2005.Name of the Judge: Honble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar.Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- appeal by special leave -- against the order dated 8.12.2004 of Madras High Court, by which the petition for BAIL filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected -- prima facie a strong case has been made out for grant of BAIL to the petitioner. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The petitioner shall be released on BAIL on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengleput -- till the submission of the charge sheet in Court, the petitioner shall not visit the Mutt premises. He shall also surrender his passport before the CJM.

2005 SCCL.COM 24(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8213 of 2001 (with C.A. No. 6691 of 2002))P. Prabhakaran Appellant with Ramesh Singh Dalal Appellant Vs. P. Jayarajan Respondent with Nafe Singh and others Respondents, decided on 1/11/2005.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Honble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil, Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.Subject Index: Representation of the people Act, 1951 -- Section 8(3) -- disqualification under -- Whether a appellate judgment of a date subsequent to the date of election and having a bearing on conviction of a candidate and sentence of imprisonment passed on him would have the effect of wiping out disqualification from a back date if a person consequent upon his conviction for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years was disqualified from filing nomination and contesting the election on the dates of nomination and election; -- What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression - 'A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years" as employed in sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? Is it necessary that the term of imprisonment for not less than 2 years must be in respect of one single offence to attract the disqualification? -- What is the purport of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of RPA? Whether the protection against disqualification conferred by sub-section (4) on a member of a House would continue to apply through the candidate had ceased to be a member of Parliament or Legislature of a State on the date of nomination or election? -- an appellate judgment of a date subsequent to the date of nomination or election (as the case may be) and having a bearing on conviction of a candidate or sentence of imprisonment passed on him would not have the effect of wiping out disqualification from a back date if a person consequent upon his conviction for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years was actually and as a fact disqualified from filing nomination and contesting the election on the date of nomination or election (as the case may be) -- What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression 'sentence to imprisonment for not less than 2 years' as occurring in Sec. 8(3) of the RPA? -- the judgment of the High Court dated 5.10.2001 is set aside. The election petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The election of the respondent P. Jayarajan from No.14 Kuthuparamba Assembly Constituency to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly, which was declared on 13.5.2001, is set aside. The respondent No.1 shall bear the costs of the appellant throughout -- The election petition filed by the appellant shall stand allowed. The election of the respondent Nafe Singh from 37-Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency is declared void as he was disqualified from being a candidate under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2005 SCCL.COM 37(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 107-108 of 2005)Panchanan Mishra Appellant Vs. Digambar Mishra and others Respondents, decided on 1/17/2005.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Honble Dr. Justice AR Lakshmanan.Subject Index: Bail -- granted by the Patna High Court -- special leave petitions passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos. 50 of 2004 and 62 of 2004 -- granting the BAIL to accused Nos.1 to 3 without considering the criminal history of the accused, the evidence available against them, the threats to the life of the complainant/appellant and his family members and likelihood to abscond from the criminal courts of justice and rendering the fair trial impossible -- the accused were armed with the guns and they surrounded the brothers and the complainant/appellant -- the complainant brought the two injured sons on a thela to Sardar Hospital Munger but they died before any medical help could be given to them and they were declared dead. One of the deceased was an advocate, another was lecturer and one was appointed auditor -- the motive of the murder was on account of the occurrence which took place that the complainant/appellant had sold a land to Ramachandra Yadav and the accused persons felt annoyed at it and tried to garb those lands on the strength of their muscle power and there is also a litigation pending between the parties. Anil Mishra was also injured -- the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Mahendra Mishra, Rajendra Mishra and Jitendra Mishra for the offence under Sections 148, 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused Digambar Mishra was convicted and sentenced under Section 109 read with Section 302 and under Section 307 I.P.C. -- the High Court did not take into proper account the grave apprehension of the prosecution that there was a likelihood of the accused persons tampering with the prosecution witnesses -- the order passed by the High Court in granting BAIL in Criminal Appeal Nos. 50 of 2004 and 62 of 2004 stands set aside and cancelled.

2005 SCCL.COM 43(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2004(with Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2005))Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Appellant Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another Respondents, decided on 1/18/2005.Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.Subject Index: Bail -- granting of -- is charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 120-B, 302/307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. This application before the High Court for grant of BAIL was the 9th application in the series of application filed by the said respondent for grant of BAIL -- grant of BAIL solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order of the High Court granting BAIL -- Court also observed that though an accused had a right to make successive applications for grant of BAIL the court entertaining such subsequent BAIL applications had duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier BAIL applications were rejected and in such cases the court also had a duty to record what are the fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications -- in the absence of any new or fresh ground, it was not open to the High Court to have reconsidered the same material and overruled the earlier findings of the court in the guise of considering afresh the existence of a prima facie -- the prosecution on the basis of the material available on record has established a prima facie case against the accused -- the conduct of the respondent-accused as brought on record clearly indicates that enlarging the said accused on BAIL would impede the progress of the trial -- the High Court was totally in error in allowing the BAIL application of the respondent by the impugned order -- impugned order of the High Court quashed -- BAIL application dismissed.

2005 SCCL.COM 76(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2005 With Special Leave Petition (crl.) 3749 of 2001)Pratap Singh Appellant Vs. State of Jharkhand and another Respondents, decided on 2/2/2005.Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K