Whether accused should be released on bail if he is in custody for one year?

As pointed out earlier, one of the grounds for grant of bail to the Appellant Anil Kumar Yadav by the Sessions Court was that he was in custody for more than one year. In crimes like murder, the mere fact that the Accused was in custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant consideration. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai case, it was observed that the period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the Accused to be enlarged on bail. The same was reiterated in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0203/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 598.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1938 of 2017.

Decided On: 14.11.2017

 Anil Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Ors.

Print Page

Whether court should pass common order for framing of charge and for grant of bail?

At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the Sessions Court considered both framing of charges and also grant of bail to Accused Anil Kumar Yadav by way of a common order. On 27.02.2017, charges were framed against all the Accused and bail was granted to Appellant Anil Kumar Yadav. Insofar as framing of charges, in a case before the Sessions Court, Under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is required to consider "whether there is ground for presuming that the Accused has committed an offence....." and then Court shall frame in writing a charge against the Accused. For grant of bail, the court is required to consider several other factors. The considerations for framing of charge and grant of bail are different. It was stated by the Bar that by and large this is the procedure followed in Delhi. We may however indicate that it is not desirable to frame charge and grant bail by way of a common order.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1938 of 2017.

Decided On: 14.11.2017

 Anil Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 12 SCC129

Print Page

Custody of girl child should be kept with mother: Bombay High Court

"The custody of a female child should be allowed to remain with her mother so that she could be looked after properly," observed Bombay high court while rejecting a man's petition seeking permanent custody of his daughter.

A division bench of justices VA Naik and AM Badar of the Nagpur bench of HC recently dismissed the appeal filed by a man, a teacher of Nagar Parishad High School in Katol, who challenged the family court's order refusing to grant him his daughter's custody in August 2013.

The HC observed that the family court had rightly dismissed the husband's custody petition. The couple married in June 2005 and their daughter was born on March 23, 2006. Due to disputes, the two got divorced.

Print Page

Whether Magistrate has jurisdiction to grant custody of vehicle seized for commission of offence u/S 3/7 of the EC Act, 1955?

The aforesaid analysis of statutory provisions and the principles of
law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above
referred cases (supra) would show that whenever any essential
commodity is seized, under an order made in exercise of power conferred
by Section 3 of EC Act, in relation thereto no court, tribunal or authority
shall have jurisdiction to make any order with regard to possession,
delivery, disposal, release or distinction of such essential commodity save
and except the Collector pending confiscation under Section 6A of the EC
Act, 1955, therefore, in the matter of making orders with regard to
disposal of seized vehicle in pursuance to order made under Section 3 of
the Act, only the Collector or judicial authority, as the case may be, shall
have any jurisdiction to make orders with regard to the disposal of that
vehicle/essential commodity seized in pursuance of order made under
Section 6E of the EC Act, 1955 and jurisdiction of Magistrate to grant
custody under Section 457 is expressly barred.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Cr.M.P. NO . 1068 of 2014
PETITIONER Vishnu Prasad Vaishnav
Versus
RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh

(Passed on 17. 12.2014)
Citation;2015 CRLJ 961 Chhatis

Print Page

Whether Court is competent to remand accused to custody U/S 309(2) CRPC even if he is in illegal imprisonment?.

The word "custody" in Section 309, Cr.P.C., in our opinion therefore, means physical imprisonment as distinct from being on bail. Even if the accused is in prison after his arrest in a criminal case without an order or warrant of remand by a competent Court he is in custody as distinct from being on bail. The word "custody" therefore embraces both legal imprisonment as well as illegal imprisonment."

"The Court is, therefore, competent to remand the accused to custody under S. 309(2), Cr.P.C., even if he is in illegal imprisonment. It can thus rectify its mistake and transform his illegal imprisonment into legal imprisonment."

In view of the above discussion it is clear that the submissions of the learned counsel are not tenable. The remand order dated 20.4.2005 was to continue till 26.04.2005. During this period a fresh remand order under section 309 was passed on 25.4.2005 (though not expressly) and at any rate on 26.4.2005. There is no dispute that the order dated 20.4.2005 was a valid order under section 167. As indicated above, it did not cease to operate on the mere filing of the charge-sheet and upon cognizance being taken. It ceased to operate possibly on 25.4.2005 (if the production order is taken to be an implied remand order) and definitely on 26.4.2005, both, because of lapse of time and because the fresh remand order under section 309) CrPC came to be passed. The remand order of 26.04.2005 was passed after cognizance had been taken and when the petitioner was in custody in the sense explained above. At present also, the petitioner is in judicial custody on the basis of a subsequent valid remand order. In these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail on the grounds urged by him. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. It is made clear that no arguments were advanced on 'merits' nor was this application treated a regular bail application solely under section 439 CrPC. The entire scope and discussion centered around section 309 CrPC. So, the dismissal of this application does not foreclose the petitioner from moving an application for regular bail under section 439 CrPC which, if filed, would undoubtedly be disposed of on merits.

Delhi High Court

Sunil Kumar Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 June, 2005

Print Page

Right to privacy includes that bank should maintain confidentiality in respect of documents in its custody

Right to privacy deals with 'persons and not places', the documents or copies of documents of the customer which are in Bank, must continue to remain confidential vis-`-vis the person, even if they are no longer at the customer's house and have been voluntarily sent to a Bank. If that be the correct view of the law, we cannot accept the line of Miller in which the Court proceeded on the basis that the right to privacy is referable to the right of 'property' theory. Once that is so, then unless there is some probable or reasonable cause or reasonable basis or material before the Collector for reaching an opinion that the documents in the possession of the Bank tend, to secure any duty or to prove or to lead to the discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to any duty, the search or taking notes or extracts therefore, cannot be valid. The above safeguards must necessarily be read into the provision relating to search and inspection and seizure so as to save it from any unconstitutionality.

Supreme Court of India

Distt. Registrar & Collector, ... vs Canara Bank Etc on 1 November, 2004

Author: L . R.C.

Bench: R Lahoti, A Bhan

Print Page