Skip to main content

Not permissible to simply re-arrest the accused out on bail by adding another offence

The Supreme Court in MANOJ SURESH JADHAV vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA has held that that it is not permissible to simply re-arrest the accused, by adding another offence, ignoring the bail order in force at that time.

Earlier, FIR was registered against the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 509 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 12 and 17 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Sessions Court, observing that bail in the bailable offence is right of the accused, granted bail to the accused. Later, the police added Section 376 IPC and re-arrested the accused.

The Bombay High Court, as the accused approached it challenging re-arrest, observed: “Having regard to the fact that offence under Section 376 of the IPC has been added for which the maximum punishment is ten years. In our view, the re-arrest of the Petitioners cannot be taken exception to.”

The Supreme Court bench, setting aside the high court order, observed: “It is not permissible for the respondent-State to simply re-arrest the petitioners by ignoring order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which was in force at that time.”

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/not-permissible-to-re-arrest-an-accused-who-is-in-bail-when-police-added-a-non-bailable-offence-read-order/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Winding-Up Petition Can’t Be Used If Bona Fide Payment Disputes Pending

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M/s Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd vs  M/s Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd, has held that a winding-up petition has serious  ramifications on the financial standing of a company and cannot be used in cases  where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed by one party to the  other and in such cases the company court should relegate the matter either to the  civil court or arbitral tribunal. In this case, Uttam Industrial Ltd entered into a contract with Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd  to provide machinery and equipment for a sugar plant. Article referred:  http://www.livelaw.in/remedy-winding-petition-cant-relied-upon-bona-fide-payment-disputes-karnataka-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

A liquidator must pay GST on sale of assets of a defunct company

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling has ruled that a National Company Law Tribunal appointed liquidator must have the GST registration till all liabilities cease to exist and that the liquidator must pay goods and services tax (GST) on sale of assets of a defunct company under liquidation, as the sale is effectively supply of goods. 
Post a Comment
Read more