The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to law students, who were accused of injuring two advocates inside their chamber.

The students had earlier filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail before the Hyderabad Bench of the Telangana High Court. 

The High Court had dismissed the petition on the grounds that the accused had trespassed into the advocates’ office and assaulted the two lawyers.

The High Court had further recorded that in the complaint filed by the advocate, the accused were also slapped with allegations for assaulting a woman advocate as well. Apart from this, the offence of trespassing was also alleged.

It noted that the de-facto complainant had filed a written complaint on July 27, 2023, alleging that the petitioners had trespassed into their office and assaulted both the de-facto complainant and the woman advocate in the office. The de-facto complainant received injuries on the face and eye. The woman advocate was assaulted, amounting to outraging her modesty.

The accused then approached the Supreme Court, which granted them anticipatory bail on the grounds that there was no material for keeping the appellants in custody at this stage. 

The Apex Court further observed that the appellants’ detention was not justifiable in the absence of any other serious reason.

It observed that there appeared to be conflicting complaints between the appellants and the injured lawyers. The appellants were meant to have caused serious injuries to one of the lawyers. 

However, this Court could not find any material which would justify custodial interrogation of the appellants. There were no other aggravating circumstances also, which would justify their detention at the investigation stage, it added.

However, the top court of the country imposed a few conditions. It directed the appellants to be present at the office of the investigating officer once a week, every Saturday at 5.00 pm till the filing of the charge sheet. 

Besides, the appellants were directed not to interfere with or influence the witnesses while remaining enlarged on bail.

(Case title: Mir Shujath Ali Khan etc vs The State of Telangana)

The High Court of Delhi on Thursday directed Shahrukh Pathan, one of the accused in the Northeast riots of 2020, to approach the trial court for advance hearing of his petition, after the latter alleged that he was attacked and assaulted by jail officials.

The order was passed by the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Sharma, which observed that since a petition has already been moved before the trial court, it would be appropriate if the application seeking early hearing was filed in the concerned court only.

Representing Pathan, Advocate Khalid Akhtar submitted that the trial court had listed the matter for hearing on February 28, but it did not pass any order or direction for either preservation or production of CCTV footage.

Besides, the trial court did not pass any order regarding adequate safety measures for the petitioner, pointed out the Counsel.

The High Court suggested the petitioner orally to approach the trial court for early hearing, saying that if nothing happened at that front, then the High Court would look into the matter. 

The Single-Judge Bench granted him liberty to file an application before the trial court in the matter. Pathan then withdrew his plea. 

Though the accused was booked in various cases related to the riots, the petition in question was moved in FIR 51/2020, which was related to an incident wherein Patahn had pointed a gun towards a policeman during the riots. His pictures regarding the incident had gone viral on social media.

The FIR was registered at Jafrabad police station under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 153­A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion etc), 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 188 (Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant) 307 (Attempt to murder), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief), 120­B (Criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of IPC along with Section 27 (Punishment for using arms, etc) of Arms Act.

In December last year, the trial court had framed charges against Pathan and other accused in the FIR. It had also convicted a man for harbouring Pathan under Section 216 of IPC after he had voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him.

(Case title: Shahrukh Pathan vs State)

A local court in Delhi has granted bail to a person, who was accused of dragging Delhi Commission for Woman (DCW) Chairperson Swati Maliwal by a car outside the All India Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on January 19, after her hand got stuck in the vehicle’s window.

Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) Sanghmitra of Saket Court granted bail to Harish Chander on Saturday on a bail bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety of like amount after observing that though the nature of accusations was serious, keeping the accused behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.

As per the Metropolitan Magistrate, all the offences of which the accused was charged with, barring one, were bailable in nature and the punishment for the same was less than seven years.

It also asked the IO regarding the requirement for custodial interrogation of the accused for investigation. After the IO replied in negative, the Saket court granted bail to Chander.

The court took in view the fact that the accused had no previous involvement in any other offence. It ruled that any apprehensions regarding the accused attempting to threaten the witnesses or tampering with the evidence were at this stage ipso dixit (unproven).   

Appearing for Harish, Advocate S.K. Dhaka claimed that a video had surfaced showing Maliwal with a cameraman approaching the accused, which was, in reality, a ‘staged act’ performed by the complainant to ‘show her power’.

The bail application was opposed by Additional Public Prosecutor Dishank Dhawan, contending that the accused was repeatedly making lewd gestures.

He said that if an accused committing such an act with the DCW chief was granted bail, it would send a wrong message to the society. 

The APP urged the court to look at the impact of the order on the society before granting bail to the accused. He added that the MLC of the accused showed that he was drunk.

(Case title: State vs Harish Chander)

The Supreme Court has sought response of the Bihar government by December 5 on a petition filed by a police officer, allegating that he was beaten up badly in the chamber of Additional District Judge (ADJ) of Patna last year.

The order was passed by the Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh on Wednesday on a petition filed by policeman Gopal Krishna, challenging the Patna High Court order of August 31, which had accepted the closure report filed by police in the complaint against the District Judge.

As per the petitioner, he was called inside the chamber of ADJ Avinash Kumar on November 18, 2021, wherein the ADJ abused him verbally. When the petitioner objected, he was severely assaulted at the behest of the ADJ.

The police officer said this was done after filing of a complaint by one Usha Devi, wife of one Deepak Raj, alleging that the petitioner, who was the Station House Officer of Ghoghardiha police station, had threatened to falsely implicate Devi, Raj husband and her other family members.
The policeman said he had initially refused to appear before the ADJ, but after receiving multiple calls, he appeared in the chamber of Avinash Kumar, ADJ, at 2 pm.

 
In his statement, the policeman claimed that as soon as he entered the chamber, ADJ Avinash Kumar abused him and when he protested against such behaviour, the petitioner was severely assaulted at the behest of the ADJ.

He further said that Deepak Raj and other Court officials started beating him. At this point, the petitioner No.2 came into the room and he was also beaten up by ADJ Avinash Kumar.

To save his life, the policeman said he locked himself in the bathroom. Blood was oozing from the petitioner’s body and his uniform was torn, added the statement.

He alleged that an FIR was lodged against the Judge after a considerable delay on June 20, 2022.

The ADJ also lodged an FIR against the petitioner in November, 2021 based on which, the petitioner was arrested. He managed to secure bail only in June, 2022.

The petitioner claimed that when the case came up before the High Court, it observed that the police officers who registered the same, were in contempt of court.

The State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the same was registered out of misconception of facts and filed a closure report. The court accepted the report and directed the lower court to close the proceedings.

The petitioner argued before the top court of the country that the FIR was closed by the State Government “under the threat of contempt”.

He alleged that the High Court had incorrectly accepted the closure report and closed the case directing the lower court not to proceed with the said FIR.

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused booked for aggravated sexual assault (punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act) upon a 8-year-old girl.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sadhna Rani Thakur passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Manoj Saxena.

The accused applicant, Manoj Saxena, is involved in Case under Sections 376A, B, 354 IPC & 9D/10 POCSO Act & 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Civil Line, District Badaun.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that there is a general allegation in the FIR.

In the statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC of the victim, there is no ingredient of Section 376 IPC. No medical treatment has been conducted as the parents of the victim refused to get her daughter medically examined. No injury has been found on the person of the victim. In fact, the father of the victim is a police personnel and this FIR is only the misuse of that power. The applicant is 50 years of age so the incident appears to be suspicious. He is languishing in jail since 13.04.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application and submitted that as per medical report, the victim is 10 years of age and as per school leaving certificate, the age of the girl is seven years.

From the perusal of the FIR, it appears that in the absence of other family members when the 8-year-old victim was alone at her home and when she saw her TV dish connection was disturbed, she called Manoj Saxena (applicant), the person to repair the dish connection. When Manoj Saxena (applicant) came inside the house, he saw the girl alone at her home, he started vulgar activities with her. The victim made hue and cry then he ran away from the house. In the statement under Section 161 CrPC, the victim has stated that when Manoj Saxena came to the house of the first informant to repair the dish connection, seeing the girl alone at her home he inserted his hand in her clothes and kissed her on the lips, the Court observed.

Admittedly, the parents of the victim have denied any medical examination of the victim, the Court noted.

“Having heard the submissions of the counsel of both sides, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail,” the Court observed.

The Court ordered,

Let the applicant Manoj Saxena, who is involved in aforesaid crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

1. The applicant will attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.

3. He will not indulge himself in any illegal activities during the bail period. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently closed a Suo Motu PIL registered in 2020 as per the authorisation of the then Chief Justice, on the basis of newspaper reports and video clippings sent by one Vangalapudi Anitha, which show inhuman and barbaric assault on a doctor namely Dr Sudhakar by the police authority.

On May 18, 2020, the High Court appointed  P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel, as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. Thereafter on May 20, 2020, the Court issued further direction to supply all available materials to the Amicus Curiae.

By a detailed order of May 22, 2020, the High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR and conduct investigation in the matter.

On February 16, in the course of hearing, the Court was informed that CBI has completed investigation against (1) P. Suryanarayana, SI, (2) G. Lakshmana Rao, Home Guard (Traffic), (3) V. Madhu Babu, PC (Traffic) and (4) E.V.V. Prasad, PC (AR), and filed a charge sheet before the jurisdictional CBI Court, after obtaining sanction from the appointing authority for prosecution of the aforesaid persons.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court directs DMs of Kaushambi, Dehradun to end proceedings in three months in arms renewal case

Amicus Curiae Reddy submitted that since the investigation has already been completed, nothing remains for adjudication in this matter and therefore, the proceedings in this petition may be closed.

Having heard the Counsel for the parties, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Subba Reddy Sati on February 16 observed that the proceedings in this petition need not be continued further. However, the Bench directed the jurisdictional CBI court to complete the trial at the earliest.

Before parting with this case, the High Court  appreciated the assistance rendered by P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel, as Amicus Curiae.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Registry to forward a communication to the trial judge to submit a report to this court within a period of three weeks, clarifying the status of the trial in the case against Baijnath Mahto, accused of allegedly assaulting the deceased, who later died during treatment.

A three-judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee issued the directions while hearing the bail plea filed by the petitioner praying for grant of bail as he has been in custody for over six years and eight months, and the co-accused have been released on bail.

The petitioner urged the Apex Court to consider that though all the prosecution witnesses in the present matter have been examined, the direction issued by Supreme Court in its order dated August 30, 2019, has not been fulfilled, and the trial is still pending. According to the Supreme Court’s order from August 2019, while no bail was given to the petitioner, the trial court was directed to complete the proceedings within a period of six months.

The petitioner was represented before the Supreme Court by Senior Advocate Devdutt Kamat, Advocates Rajesh Inamdar and Somesh Chandra Jha.

The petitioner in the present case is charged with the commission of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the petitioner Baijnath Mahto, who is the brother of the local MLA, on the orders of the said MLA, had brought the deceased and the girl he was having an affair with, from Chennai, and along with other co-accused persons, had assaulted the deceased, who subsequently died during treatment in hospital.

The previous bail applications of the petitioner were rejected on merits, taking into consideration the statement of a press reporter Manoj Kumar, who had stated that while the deceased was undergoing treatment, he had recorded the video of the deceased, and the deceased had named the petitioner and the other co-accused persons, stating that he was assaulted by them. The said video had also been tested in Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found to be genuine.

The Jharkhand High Court in September 2020 did not find it proper to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner as the bail application of the petitioner had been rejected by the Apex Court and had observed that even on merits, no case was made out for granting bail to the petitioner.

Read Also: Supreme Court to hear advocates’ plea against Justice Karnan’s video on social media