Phantom Blogs

Legal Blogs

Principles of Natural Justice

No one can be judge of his own cause,
Right to be heard
No one can pass unreasoned judgement
No one can pass cryptic order.

No one is perfect

Even Judges Do mistakes,
Silly Mistake
Knowingly,
Unknowingly.

A Dismay Story of Indian Advocates

Advocates are made not born,

An argument at Silly-Point


between a judge and a lawyer
a hon'ble Orissa high Court
on the point of making the Registrar of NHRC a party to the suit

A video
presentation

During Law Study
At Chhattisgarh, Raipur
Farhan Coaching
In English

Discrimination between
a poor and a rich CCL

Odisha Vs Maharastra
Rich Father & Sugar Daddy Vs Single Mother
Nayagarh Pari Murder Vs Pune Poscha Car Case

No More Safety In The Place of Safety

ALL are sleeping and the future of the country is behind the bar.

SAVE THE CHIDREN IN CONFLICT WITH LAW

State Considered them the second-class citizen of this country

College Teacher
Vs
College Student

The IPS Arun Bothra implicated two innocent in the false cases.

Coming Soon......

AIBE
Vs
CPET

Two Examinations of a kind,
One for wrongful gain
another for
public interest.

AIBE - A mockery of the Indian legal education system whereas the CPET is a real one.

Sarah Sunny Vs Lalit Kumar & Ors.

Nepotism Still Prevails in the Court
All Lawyers survive
All Soldiers die



Judiciary's
Blue Eyed Boys

Bar Council of India
State Bar Councils
Laywers
are the blue eyed boys of the Indian Judiciary
and they will never gets punished by the Indian Judiciary even if the large scale misconducts, absue of power and corruption prevailing in these offices.


A Noble Cause
by Our Senior Advocate
Advocate T.K.Dwibedi

Planting a Tree a small step by a man but a giant leap by the Mankind as we have only one HOME to live in the Mother EARTH.


Example set by the young lawyer Advocate Abinash Giri of Bhadrak

by marriage a girl before Marriage officer of Bhadrak in a single ceremony and without taking a single paisa a Dowry.


Orissa High Court Acting like
an Agent of
Rulling Government and
Political Party

In MLA Pradeep Panigrahi Case.
Lady IIC of PATANA Police Station Case
and Numerious more.
The Poeple of Odisha lost all hope and faith in it and engaging antisocial to redress their grievances.

The provision of Article 50 of the Constitution of India Violated for the wrongful gain

Most Mis-used judgement of the Supreme Court by the PIOs

CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay, Civil Appeal No.6464 of 2011.

False Implication of Dr. Dilbag Singh Thakur of SCB Medical Colleve and Hospital in the crime No.201 of 2024 by the Mangalabag Police Statation

Thus violated the Supreme Court guidelines
Lalita Kumari Vs State of UO, WP Crl. 68 of 2008
Commisisonerate Police Vs Devender Anand & Anr , Crl. Appeal No.834 of 2017
Direction of the CID-CB vide Notification No. 31787 Dt. 31-08-2019.

Odisha High Court Mediation Centre is running for mere formality.

As it is in the hands of incompetent, impotent and powerless people.

Cheating and Forgery Committed by DCP Prateek Singh of Bhubaneswar-UPD

the DCP has sublet his police duty to the section officer who is signing as the DCP of Bhubaneswar-UPD

Misconducts, Abuse of power, abuse of process of law and corruption prevailing in the Tenkasi District Judiciary of Tamil Nadu

No monitoring by the High Court as per the provision of section 529 of BNSS-2023 and it is done under a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy, intentionally, dishonestly, fraudulently and for the wrongful gain.

Supreme Court guidelines of the protection of Medical Professionals-2024

This is a Suo motu cognizance taken by the apex court due to the unfortunate incident of alleged Rape and Murder of the lady doctor in the RG Kar hospital of Kolkata.

Legal Misadventure by lawyer is strictly prohibited

but here in the State of Odisha legal misadventure is the source of the collection of illegal money as more than 20000 petitions are filed before the hon'ble Orissa High Court for the registration of FIR even if the same has been prohibited as per the rule of law, direction of the competent authority(s) and as per the guidelines of the apex court given in the cases of Priyanka Srivastava & Sakir Bahu.

Do and Dont For Lawyers

Dos and Donts For The Legal Practitioners Dos and Don’ts For The Legal Practitioners Towards Dos Donts Noble Profession Always keep reputation of this Noble Profession in and out of court. Do not fight with anyone while you are on duty. Do not fight threatened anyone using the might & power of this profession. Bench Be Professional in court, conduct should be good, Addressing the court appropriately. Proper etiquette is crucial and that “omission to observe this elementary rule can be disastrous.” If the opposition party is misleading the court, then note it down and submit the same in writing or file a recall based on the same. Always address the Bench and presiding officer of the Bench as per the status of he stationed. i.e. Address a Public Servant with Sir Address a Magistrate and a District with Your Honour Address a justice of a High Court and Supreme Court with My Lord or Your Lordship Do Not Argue with the Court: Do not react negatively to rulings or express anger in the courtroom. Never cites overruled cases, He stresses the importance of not showing irritability or anger in court. Never interrupt the judge or opposing counsel. Never mislead the court, clients, or opposing parties. Bar A good lawyer keeps important pending cases always in mind, even during leisure time, as solutions to problems can often come unexpectedly. He stresses that lawyers “can’t switch off” Don’t adopt a casual approach towards a case. being LINCOLN LAWYER not always beneficial. Client Always cross check to ascertain the veracity of the allegations to find out the truth. Always give sound & correct advise to your client. Try to settle their dispute amicably. Always stand by with your client like and Ambassador. Always make your client believe in the judiciary. Don’t give criminal color to a civil dispute. Don’t try to settle personal score by moving criminal machinery, as the same is nothing but the abuse of the process of law. Don’t allow others to do the same also. Never work for fee, Always work for this noble profession. Never harass an innocent using the might and power of this Noble profession. Don’t allow others to do so. Don’t appear in a court without preparation take adjournment to prepare your case as the preparation of a proper defence is a fundamental right of the client litigant. Don’t believe on the facts and circumstances provided by the client, litigant. Don’t Trust Without Verifying Don’t forget to cite the rule of law, directions of the competent authority(s) and courts, and the guidelines of the supreme court. Opposition Party Always deal with the Opp. party with courtesy. Always ready to help them to end the case. Never fight with them as they are not your enemy. Don’t insult them in court or outside. Society Be an example for the society. Watch out for other renowned lawyers. Be a Torch bearer for the socieity. Be a voice for voiceless. Never go against society, even if society is against you. Always stand by for society. Social development should be paramount. Fellow Lawyers Always deal with the opponent lawyer with respect. Mutual respect and camaraderie for one’s own sanity Don’t quarrel or being nasty to opponents Lawyers. as lawyers spend a significant part of their lives with colleagues at the bar. Case Always try to settle the dispute amicably in small, matrimonial, civil matters. As litigation is only sub-set of a legal profession. always approach to The Administration and Legislation first to settle the dispute. Never rush to court in hurry. compel the District Administration to provide the remedy first. Then approach to the instrumentalities like Court of Executive Magistrate, SP office, State Human Rights Commission, OSCPCR, Women commission etc. Compel the Administration and Other Govt. instrumentalities to provide remedies. Refer : Case Law : Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel Vs UOI, Crl. Appeal No. 1943 of 2022 Use provision of State Litigation Policy which mandates for the redressal of the citizen complaint so that a citizen should not approach to a court. Refer : Odisha State Litigation Policy-2011 Preparation is paramount. A lawyer must be thoroughly prepared, Studying all relevant facts and laws, and anticipating all possible permutations and combinations of the case. Legal research is very important to crack the nut of the case where a lawyer goes beyond the immediate brief to consider all surrounding areas. Field and spot visit is very important to ascertain the facts and circumstances of a case. File RTI application to get information about the case. Apply for the certified and true copy of the document. Do Know the Latest Law, Subscribe for law journals, online portal like SCC online, Livelaw etc. Yourself Always keep yourself up to date with the latest case law. Up-to- day Developments in the law field. Subscribed to Law Journals, forums like SCC Online,Live-Law. Study a case law on daidy basis. Don’t be a miser to spent on Books, Subscription, Computer, smartphone , tablet, laptop etc. Marginalised & Vulnerable Sections Take only that, if the party is willing to pay. Don’t Compel these people to pay your fee. Government / Administration Compel the Government & Its Instrumentalities to redress the problem. Don’t rush to court without approaching these instrumentalities first.

View Post »

Difference Between Rejection & Quashing of Bail Order

Difference Between Rejection & Quashing of Bail Order. Bail – Difference between setting aside of bail order and cancellation of bail – Grant of bail to accused by High Court – Challenged, seeking setting aside of bail order. Held, cancellation of bail is warranted only when the privilege of bail is abused, such as by tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or committing a subsequent offence. In contrast, an order granting bail may be set aside only if it is found to be perverse, arbitrary, or illegal, thereby suffering from serious legal infirmities. Precedents relied upon: Ansar Ahmad, Mahipal [JT 2019 (12) SC 50], Ajwar [JT 2024 (5) SC 534], Shabeen Ahmad. (Para 8) Bail – Grant of, by High Court, though denied by Trial Court – Challenged – Charges under Sections 419, 420, 467 Indian Penal Code and Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022 on the basis of FIR alleging that ‘I’ used a dummy candidate for Assistant Engineer (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022, attendance sheets and admit cards were tampered with – Co-accused ‘S’ was accused of facilitating the malpractice and receiving Rs. 10 lacs – Whether High Court was justified in granting bail. Held, High Court committed an error in granting bail, having disregarded the gravity of the primary offence and its far-reaching impact on society. The Court reiterated the paramount importance of preserving the sanctity of government recruitment examinations, which must remain fair, as fraudulent practices deprive meritorious candidates of their legitimate rights to equal opportunity. While the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle, the seriousness of the offence and its broader ramifications necessitate a cautious and balanced approach in considering bail. Bail cancelled, with liberty to apply for bail at a later stage. HELD Keeping in view the above pronouncements of law, we are of the view that the Trial Court had been correct in denying bail to the respondents herein. Considerations by the High Court of lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody are perfectly valid criteria for grant of bail, but the Court while giving due credence to them, cannot lose sight of the primary offence and its effect on society. (Para 9) Since surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job, we concur with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail. At the same time, it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time the offence they are charged with, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Let them stand trial, and let it be established by the process of law, that the respondent – accused have indeed not committed any crime in law. (Para 11) We are conscious of the fact that bail once granted is not to be set aside ordinarily, and we wholeheartedly endorse this view. The view taken hereinabove, however, has been taken keeping in view the overall impact of the alleged acts of the respondent-accused and its effect on society. (Para 12) Cases Referred 1.  Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P. [Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2025] (Para 8.4.) 2.  Ajwar v. Waseem [JT 2024 (5) SC 534] (Para 8.3.) 3.  Ansar Ahmad v. State of U.P. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 974] (Para 8.1.) 4.  Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [JT 2019 (12) SC 50] (Para 8.2.)   Blogger is a Legal Practitioner View Judgement View GIST

View Post »

SC-To-HC-11

The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. In M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Bengaluru, (2020) 2 SCC 768, this Court has held as under: – “17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and discern the following principles: 17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court. 17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”. 17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion. 17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.  17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true. 17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused. 18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar). The expression, “the record of the case”, used in Section 227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents and the articles, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of the charge, the submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the police (see State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi).” The Blogger is a Legal Practitioner.   View Judgment View GIST

View Post »

Lawyers-Right-1

Advocates Are Officers Of the Court Thus have right to file Writ, complaint, Application etc. before any court, forms, public servants etc. The petitioner, an advocate, challenged a High Court order dismissing his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an independent probe into alleged fake police encounters in Assam. The petition claimed over 80 fake encounters since May 2021, citing non-compliance with PUCL guidelines, including failure to register FIRs against police personnel and inadequate investigations.  Specific cases, such as the Tinsukia encounter, were highlighted, alleging procedural irregularities and police coercion. The Supreme Court directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to conduct an independent, expeditious inquiry into allegations of 171 fake encounters, ensuring victim participation and confidentiality. The petition alleged widespread violation of guidelines laid down in People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 635, regarding police encounter investigations. The Court underscored the role of human rights commissions in safeguarding civil liberties and the rule of law, noting that proven fake encounters violate Article 21 of the Constitution. While each of the 171 cases requires objective scrutiny, blanket directions based solely on compiled allegations were deemed unwarranted. The AHRC was granted authority to initiate further investigations, with state cooperation mandated and institutional barriers to be removed. The Assam State Legal Services Authority was directed to provide legal aid to victims, and measures were ordered to protect the identities of victims, families, and witnesses. The Court dismissed concerns raised by the Solicitor General about potential misuse of legal assistance, affirming confidence in the judicial system. The petitioner’s locus standi was upheld, recognizing the role of individuals in exposing alleged state excesses. While most cases did not prima facie indicate flagrant violations of PUCL guidelines, some warranted further scrutiny. The Court clarified that PUCL guidelines mandate investigation of the encounter incident, not necessarily the police officers involved. The Blogger is a Legal Practitioner.   View Judgement View Gist

View Post »

Lawyers-Income

Lawyers At Initial Stage Of Practice In District Courts Struggle To Earn Sufficient Income: Allahabad High Court Observing that it is a matter of common knowledge that lawyers at the initial stage of practice in district courts struggle to earn sufficient income and often face severe financial hardship, the Allahabad High Court recently reduced the maintenance amount payable by a junior advocate to his estranged wife. A Bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh modified the order of the Family Court, Pilibhit, noting that the previously awarded maintenance of Rs. 5K was ‘excessive’ given the “uncertain and fluctuating income” of the husband, who is a practising lawyer. The bench was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by the husband (Hiralal), challenging a May 16 order of the Family Court directing him to pay Rs 5,000 per month to his wife towards maintenance. The revisionist submitted that he completed his LLB in 2016 and is currently practising under a senior counsel in the District Court while preparing for competitive examinations. His counsel highlighted that he earns merely Rs 300-400 on some days and nothing on others, making it extremely difficult for him to meet even his basic livelihood expenses. The counsel for the wife, on the other hand, opposed the plea and argued that the husband is earning a handsome income and owns significant land and rental properties. Justice Singh noted that while the marriage was admitted, there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the wife’s claims regarding the husband’s stable income. Instead, the Court took judicial notice of the financial reality of the legal profession. The Court observed thus: “It is a matter of common knowledge that most lawyers at the initial stage of practice in district courts struggle to earn sufficient income and often face severe financial hardship”. Noting that the husband’s income was “uncertain and fluctuating”, the Court stated that in the absence of proof of fixed income, the maintenance amount “must be reasonable and proportionate to the paying capacity of the husband.” View Judgement View Gist View Letter Petition File Before the OHC

View Post »

Lawyers’ Rights

Table of Contents Subscribe Rights & Duties of Legal Practitioners Right To Practice BCI cannot ban the practice till the remedies exhausted Advocacy is a Noble Profession Advocates are Officers of Courts Thus has right to file Writ, Complaint, Application etc. before any court, Forums, public servants etc. View Blog Any TOM, DICK & Harry cannot be promoted to Senior Designation Bar & Bench are tow wheels of a Chariot. Litigant Should Not Be Made To Suffer Because Of Advocate New Lawyer struggling to get income The same was also ascertained by Allahaband High Court View Blog No Strike By Advocates

View Post »

Corum-Non-Judiciary-Renders-Relief-Illusory-1

CORUM NON-JUDICIARY RENDERS RELIEF ILLUSSORY. Bail Court cannot act as a constitutional court while deciding a matter under 439 of CrPc.,1973 or 483 of BNSS-2023 01-High Court cannot act as a constitutional court while deciding a matter under 439 of CrPc,1973 or 483 of BNSS-2023. 02.That, Magistrates and District Judges consider themselves to be the servants of the government.  03. That, their court has been hijacked by a member of the prosecution department. The Orders have been procured or secured without any knowledge of the magistrates and judges.  04. That, These magistrates and judges have trained their section officers and typists on how to type a bail cancellation order and reject any petition taking false grounds. 05. That, the magistrate and judges are not going through the petition, prayers, grounds, and synopsis 06. That, the maximum magistrates and judges do not have any basic knowledge of law as to law related to recall. 07. That, maximum magistrates and judges have no respect for the rules of law, directions of the competent authority(s), rulings of the competent courts, and the guidelines of the apex court. 08. That, even the default bail applications are reject taking false and vague grounds. 09. That, many magistrates and judges are not uploading the orders/judgements on the official website. The Blogger is a legal practitioner.   Supreme Court Set Aside The Order of Allahabad High court-Page 20 Onwards GIST of Supreme Court Judgement View GISTS and Order of NHRC View Children Court Keonjhar , Odisha bail rejection orders View Children Court Keonjhar , Odisha;s Recall application rejection orders View Children Court Keonjhar , Odisha;s Withdrawan of prosecution application rejection orders View JMFC-V Bhubaneswar order rejecting Bail Application in Bailable offence View ADJ Bhubaneswar order rejecting Bail Application in Bailable offence View JMFC-V Bhubaneswar order rejecting Default Bail Application in Bailable offence

View Post »

Bail-Is-A-Matter-Of-Right

Filing Of Fresh Bail Application After Rejection Of Earlier Bail Plea Or Cancellation Of Bail Is A Matter Of Right : Supreme Cour The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a bail application solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted the filing of a fresh application. The Court reiterated that the filing of a fresh bail application, after the dismissal of an earlier bail application or the cancellation of the bail granted, was a right. “Filing of a fresh bail application, once an earlier bail application has been rejected or if granted and thereafter cancelled is a matter of right and solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted filing of the fresh bail application, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application,” observed a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti. Also Read – Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations  The petitioner in this case was initially granted bail. Later, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail. While canceling the bail granted by the High Court, it had not given any liberty to the appellant to file a fresh bail application. On this ground, the High Court refused to entertain the second bail application. Disapproving of the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court said : “There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted. This Court in canceling the bail application has not taken away the right of the appellant to apply for bail afresh, if the circumstances permit.” The High Court’s order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Case : Vipin Kumar vs State of UP   Blogger Is a Legal Practitioner View Supreme court Judgement View SC Gist

View Post »

DefaultBail5

60 Day or 90 Day or 120 Days For Filling the Charge-Sheet Clarified by the Courts​ As at present advised, I am in respectful agreement with the dissenting verdict of Sri. Justice Prafulla C. Pant in Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam – 2017 (4) KHC 470 (SC). The three Judges Bench was, inter alia interpreting clause (i) of paragraph (a) of the first proviso to Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C in order to consider whether the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C Act” for short) prescribing a sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, attracts the aforesaid clause. If the solitary offence in a case or if the gravest of the offences in a case, falls or fall under the above clause, then the accused will have to remain in judicial custody for a total period of 90 days in order to become eligible for default bail.   Even though the Cr.P.C does not use the expression default bail, this phrase came to be recognized in legal circles because of the indefeasible right of bail given to the accused in custody on account of the default of the investigating agency in completing the investigation within the time specified by the Section which has categorized the offences depending on their gravity. The law expects the investigating officers to complete the investigation expeditiously particularly in cases where the accused person is in judicial custody. The penalty which the investigating agency pays for not completing the investigation within the stipulated time, is a release of the accused on default bail even without an examination of the case on merits, whatever may be the brutality or heinousness of the crime. The visible manifestation of completion of investigation is the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C or the filing of the complaint by the empowered officer, before the appropriate Court. That is why when requests for default bail are made, Courts very carefully verify whether the police report or the complaint has been filed within the time – limit fixed under clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The controversy which the Apex Court purported to resolve in Rakesh Kumar Paul is with regard to certain category of cases falling under clause (i) of paragraph (a) of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Clause (i) referred to above, reads as follows:- “(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.” (emphasis supplied) All the learned Judges who have attempted to interpret the above clause are in unison in holding that the above clause takes in three categories of cases, namely,1. Offences punishable with death.2. Offences punishable with imprisonment for life, and3. Offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. Doubt rises only with regard to the third category of cases mentioned above. If the maximum punishment provided for an offence in a given case is imprisonment for ten years, the question is whether it attracts the third category of cases stated above ? If it does, then the accused will have to remain in remanded custody for 90 days in order to become eligible for default bail. In other words, whether the words “imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years” in the above clause will be applicable to an offence for which the sentence prescribed is imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, as in the case of Section 386 IPC or Section 13(2) of the P.C Act. The majority of two Judges, through separate judgments in Rakesh Kumar Paul, following the ratio decidendi in Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (NCT) of Delhi – (2001) 5 SCC 34, has held that in order to attract the third category of cases mentioned above, the offences should be punishable with imprisonment for more than ten years. The learned Judges went on to explain that the offence should be punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more i.e. ten years should be the minimum punishment prescribed. In my humble opinion, the above majority view does not reflect the legislative intent or even the true meaning of the words employed in the statute. First of all, the third category mentioned above, need not necessarily involve a solitary offence. It may be a case involving a solitary offence or a case involving several offences in which the gravest offence may be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years. While laying down the classes of cases, the Legislature is entitled to describe them either in singular or in plural. Secondly, applying simple arithmetic, while numbers 1 to 9 are undoubtedly less than 10, number 10 can never be less than 10. If a person is asked to give a few numbers (ignoring fractions) not less than 10, then the first number to be mentioned will be 10 since it is not less than 10. Hence, an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, is definitely an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. The question that is to be asked in such a case is whether the offender can be sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years (which is the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence). If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then the offence falls under the third category of cases obliging the accused to remain in custody for 90 days in order to be eligible for default bail. Going by the wording of the third category of cases under clause (i) of paragraph (a) of the first proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, such an interpretation alone seems to be permissible. It is for the Legislature, if felt necessary, to exclude from the above category, offences punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years. There can be no

View Post »

DefaultBail4

60 Day or 90 Day or 120 Days For filling the CS Clarified by the Courts The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused has an indefeasible right to ‘default bail’ under proviso to section 167(2) Cr.P.C. if the charge sheet isn’t filed within the stipulated time. This assertion came from the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan while dealing with the bail application of a gang rape accused, against whom, the police failed to file a charge sheet before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow within a stipulated 90 days period.   Facts in brief Significantly, he filed bail applications before the trial court (physically) and before the sessions court (online) indicating that after expiry of 90 days period no charge-sheet had been filed, therefore, it was prayed that the applicant may be granted bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as ‘default bail’. It may be noted that the stipulated period of 90 days expired on April 14, 2021, and the abovesaid bail application was filed on April 22, 2021. Interestingly, on the same day, i.e., on April 22, the charge-sheet too, was filed before the trial court and the cognizance thereof had been taken. Court’s observations At the outset, referring to the Apex Court’s ruling in the case of Bikramjit Singh vs The State Of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2020), the Court opined that the right of the accused under section 167(2), arises, if the charge-sheet has not been filed by the prosecution within stipulated period so indicated under section 167(1). In Bikramjit Singh case (Supra), the Supreme Court had observed that the accused gets an indefeasible right to ‘default bail’ if he makes an application after the maximum period for investigation of an offence is over, and before a charge sheet is filed. The right to default bail, Justice RF Nariman led bench said, is a fundamental right granted to an accused person to be released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to Section 167(2) are fulfilled. Also, in Bikramjit Singh’s case, it was also observed that even if the application for consideration of an order of being released on bail is posted before the court after some length of time, or even if the Magistrate refuses the application erroneously and the accused moves the higher forum for getting a formal order of being released on bail in the enforcement of his indefeasible right, then filing of challan at that stage will not take away the right of the accused. Further, the High Court also stressed that an application u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. should be disposed of promptly and such application should have not been treated as if is a regular bail application filed by the applicant. “Had it been a regular bail application, such application should have been presented before the learned Sessions Court then it should be heard by the trial court which is a special court in the present case but so far as the issue of default bail is concerned, it should be decided by the learned trial court inasmuch as the charge-sheet is presented by the prosecution before the trial court,” the Court further added. Significantly, stressing that liberty guaranteed under chapter 3 of the Constitution of India may not be circumvented, ignored or violated by the learned trial court, the Court observed thus: “…if after the expiry of such mandatory period and till the filing of an appropriate application u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. the charge-sheet has not been filed, even the learned trial court should not extend the remaining period and if any request on behalf of the accused applicant is made by his counsel even orally to the extent that he is ready to submit sureties/bail bonds as per the satisfaction of the court seeking default bail, the learned trial court may not refuse bail to the accused as the right of default bail emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to life and personal liberty“ With this, the order dated June 7, 2021, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow rejecting the bail application of the applicant u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. was quashed and the trial court was directed to release the present applicant on default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. View Bikramjit Singh’s Judgment View Varun Tiwari ‘s Judgment View Tarun Tiwari’s GIST

View Post »