The Delhi High Court revoked a bail order in a rape case due to the alleged victim not being given the opportunity to be heard, violating her rights. The court highlighted the importance of the victim’s participation in judicial proceedings, emphasizing the need to uphold their rights at every stage following the offense. The accused must submit a new bail application within two weeks.
Today, 12th April,The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that acquittals can’t be reversed based solely on alternative interpretations, emphasizing the importance of legal standards in reviewing acquittals. Justices Oka and Bhuyan’s bench stated that unless an appellate court deems an acquittal judgment as perverse, it cannot intervene. The court’s decision reinforces the presumption of innocence and highlights burden of proof principles, ultimately acquitting the appellants in a murder case.
Today (8th April): The Supreme Court rejected AAP leader Sanjay Singh’s appeal regarding the disclosure of PM Narendra Modi’s academic qualifications. The Court refused to intervene in the defamation case against Singh, upholding the summons issued by the trial court. The case will proceed, emphasizing that free speech does not extend to defamation.
The Supreme Court On Tuesday(2nd April) quashed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in a murder case, criticizing its hasty rejection of the trial court’s well-founded acquittal. Emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of evidence and adherence to legal principles, the ruling highlighted the importance of upholding justice and people’s rights. The accused were acquitted, and the decision serves as a reminder of fair legal processes.
![[BREAKING] Excise Policy Case: Delhi HC Sets Arvind Kejriwal's Plea Against ED Summons on September 9](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/MicrosoftTeams-image-6-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Delhi High Court to decide on Arvind Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest in a money laundering case related to the Delhi Excise Policy scam at 4:30 PM today. Kejriwal’s legal counsel argued against the arrest’s necessity and emphasized political implications. The court will issue notices and hear arguments on his interim release. The decision is set for 4:30 PM.
The Delhi High Court upheld Amit Katyal’s four-week interim bail, rejecting the Enforcement Directorate’s plea to cancel it due to medical reasons. The court noted that an extension request is pending and directed the ED to address medical concerns in the trial court. Katyal is accused in a land-for-jobs scam involving Lalu Prasad.
Today, the Supreme Court refused bail to Christian Michel James, a key figure in the AgustaWestland Group scam case involving the purchase of VVIP helicopters. Alleged middleman James, who has been in jail for five years, argued for bail under the doctrine of speciality. The court refused to entertain his plea, emphasizing the seriousness of the accusations.
Today, the Delhi High Court addressed Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in a case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sedition over his inflammatory speeches. The court has sought a response from the Delhi Police within two weeks and scheduled another hearing for April. Imam’s speeches at Aligarh Muslim University and in Delhi were perceived to instigate opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Despite arguing that he should be granted statutory bail, the trial court refused Imam’s plea, emphasizing the disruptive impact of his speeches on the 2020 riots in the national capital. He faces severe charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA. The statutory bail in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows for a maximum detention of 90 days, which can be extended to 180 days in terror-related cases under the UAPA. If the investigation is not complete at the end of this period, the court can release the person on default bail.
On7th March, The Delhi High Court expressed serious concerns over a trial judge’s alleged suggestion to settle an ongoing 2020 rape case outside of court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma disapproved of this, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and criticizing the idea of financial settlement for the offense of rape. The victim’s serious accusations further complicated the case.
In a recent judgment dated 12.09.2023, the Supreme Court of India provided clarity on the limitation period for the specific performance of contracts when no specific time is set for their execution. The court emphasized that the limitation period, as outlined in Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, […]
