scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Saturday, March 06, 2021

Legal Weekly: Accused of rape, anticipatory bail granted to do community service; top judgments of the week

Legal Weekly is a compilation of landmark rulings passed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts of the country during the week. Read upon why a Delhi court granted anticipatory bail to a rape accused and directed him to do community srevice.

Written by Sonakshi Awasthi | New Delhi |
February 17, 2018 5:52:06 pm
top judgments of the week “This appellant has even abused the trial Court on the date of delivery of judgment saying that Court would not do anything to him though he had committed such offence,” said the court.

Delhi Court: Accused of rape, applicant offers to teach deprived children as bonafide interest to the society

A Delhi court accepted an offer by an accused, who allegedly impregnated a woman on the prefix of marriage and caused forceful miscarriage, to do community service by teaching underprivileged children in order to show a bonafide interest to the society.

The accused, however, has denied all allegations made by the complainant and proved having no history of criminal record. Granting an anticipatory bail, the court directed the accused to pay a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 and specified a time to perform his services five days a week (9:00 am to 1:00 pm) for six months.

Calcutta High Court: Death sentence commuted of eight accused charged with murder and laying the deceased body on railway track

Sentenced for death by a trial court in Calcutta, eight accused had their sentence commuted in the Calcutta High Court as the court maintained that the murder had been committed out of retaliation and that it did not fall under the category of the “rarest of rare cases”.

After committing the murder near a railway station, the eight accused kept the body of the deceased on a railway track which was severed into various parts due to the movement of the train.

Acquitting two, the high court sentenced the remaining six with life, one of whom was sentenced for 30 years of imprisonment for challenging the trial court. “This appellant has even abused the trial Court on the date of delivery of judgment saying that Court would not do anything to him though he had committed such offence,” said the court.

Supreme Court: Fresh hearing of bail applications of 26 people accused of murder and grievous hurt.

After being charged of murder by the Sessions Court, Pune and Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the lower courts of 26 people and decided to hear fresh bail applications.

Two muslim men were assaulted by 26 people by bats, stones and hockey sticks, including three juveniles in conflict with law, one of whom died and other survived with injuries. The accused applied for bail in the lower courts and both courts observed that due to the appearance and attire of the two Muslim men, they were assaulted by the people, who had attended meeting of a body called Hindu Rashtra Sena half an hour prior to the murder. The two courts rejected the bail and the high court stated, “The fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion. Moreover, the applicants/accused do not have criminal record and it appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder.”

The top court set aside the order of the lower courts stating that no court can make observations which, may appear to be “coloured with a bias or against a community”. Noting that the high court did not intend to hurt feelings of any community by passing the order, the Supreme Court directed a fresh hearing of the bail applications of the 26 people.

Bombay High Court: Arms license can be refused in accordance with the law and not on ground of not possessing sufficient property

The Bombay High Court ruled that a licensing authority could not refuse to grant an arms license merely on the ground of not possessing sufficient property.

Claiming to have anti-social elements in his district, the petitioner had applied for arms with the licensing authority and had received an approval from the Circle Officer and Police Inspector of Parola Police Station but was rejected by the Superintendent of Police.

On appeal, the high court mentioned the Arms Act which, stated specific reasons when a license grant could be refused by the licensing authority and the reason in the particular case does not satisfy the legal provisions. “The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property,” said the court.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App.

0 Comment(s) *
* The moderation of comments is automated and not cleared manually by indianexpress.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement