ADVOMART’s Post

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the procedure for anticipatory bail applications related to FIRs filed before the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) should be governed by the BNSS if the application is filed on or after July 1, 2024. This ruling emphasizes that the new procedural law applies to all such cases, irrespective of when the FIR was registered. The court's decision highlights the significance of the BNSS in ensuring that all new legal applications adhere to the updated legal framework. This ruling marks an important development in the interpretation and application of the new criminal laws, impacting how anticipatory bail applications are processed moving forward. #LegalUpdate #BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita #CriminalLaw #AnticipatoryBail #LegalReform #IndiaLaw #JudicialRuling #LegalProfessionals #LawAndOrder #CriminalJustice #LawUpdates

📢 Supreme Court Reiterates Principles on Admissibility Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Legal Knowledge day -10. Case law -11 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again emphasized the strict limitations under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, ruling that only specific portions of an accused’s statement directly leading to the discovery of evidence are admissible. In Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 914], the Court expressed serious concerns about trial courts being influenced by inadmissible confessions. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih criticized the practice of incorporating inadmissible confessions in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. The Court observed that the Investigating Officer’s attempt to prove confessions made in police custody violated Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, which impose a complete prohibition on admitting such confessions as evidence. Key Highlights of the Judgment: 🔹 Only the portion of the accused’s statement leading directly to the discovery of facts is admissible. 🔹 Any confessional statements beyond this scope, including those implicating the accused in the crime, are inadmissible. 🔹 The Court reiterated the need for a trial court to exercise caution to avoid being influenced by inadmissible evidence. Since the prosecution case relied on circumstantial evidence and failed to establish the chain of events beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused were acquitted of charges of abduction and murder under the IPC. This landmark ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to evidentiary rules to ensure justice. #SupremeCourt #IndianEvidenceAct #Section27 #CriminalLaw #JudicialPrecedent #RuleOfLaw #LegalUpdate #Abduction #MurderTrial #Justice

Important Legal Update: Andhra Pradesh High Court Ruling The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently clarified that an accused's failure to submit their mobile phones to the police while in custody cannot be deemed as 'non-cooperation.' This decision underscores the protection offered under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which safeguards individuals from self-incrimination. In the case of Avuthu Srinivas Reddy Versus The Station House Officer (CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 6295 and 6306 of 2024), the Court considered bail pleas from former MP N. Suresh Babu and businessman Avutu Srinivasa Reddy. The prosecution's argument hinged on the inability of the accused to provide their mobile phones, which they claimed was essential for further investigation. However, the Court referenced a precedent from the Delhi High Court, emphasizing that coercing an accused to disclose passwords or details from their devices during an ongoing trial violates constitutional protections. The Court ultimately found that the continued detention of the accused was unnecessary, noting that over 34 co-accused had already been granted bail and demonstrating that the petitioners were not likely to evade legal processes. This ruling reinforces the balance between effective investigation and constitutional rights. Source: Live Law #LegalUpdate #ConstitutionalLaw #HumanRights #Bail #CriminalJustice #AndhraPradeshHighCourt #LegalPrecedent

Flexibility in Legal Timelines: Condonation of Delay for Acquittal Appeals In a landmark decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohd Abaad Ali v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence has clarified the applicability of s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to appeals against acquittal under s. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Authored by our associate Mr. Aditya Gupta, the judgment underscores that delays in filing such appeals can be condoned, offering prosecutorial authorities a broader scope for seeking justice. This pivotal ruling revisits and distinguishes from past precedents under the older 1908 Act, highlighting a progressive interpretation that aligns with contemporary legal frameworks. It represents a significant step in ensuring that procedural limitations do not hinder the pursuit of justice, especially in cases with substantial public interest. For a detailed analysis and further insights, please read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gBemFC7q #MetalegalAdvocates #MetalegalCourtRulings #SupremeCourtIndia #LimitationAct #CriminalLaw #AppealRights #LegalAnalysis #TimelineFlexibility

Do you know the difference between overruling a judgment and overriding a judgment? - Overruling a Judgment: When a higher court decides that a previous judgment is wrong, making it invalid and setting a new precedent.  - Example: In 2018, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized adultery, overruling previous judgments. - Overriding a Judgment: When a new law is passed that changes or cancels out a court's decision.  - Example: The 1986 law passed by the Indian Parliament overturned the Supreme Court's 1985 judgment in the Shah Bano case. Understanding these differences is crucial for navigating legal issues. Helpful? Follow Nikunj Dugar for more such insights. #LegalInsights #IndianConstitution #FundamentalRights #LegalKnowledge

'Delhi High Court Orders Return of Seized Items After Finding No Legal Proceedings under PMLA' The Delhi High Court's recent ruling in Mr. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. addresses the unconstitutional extended property seizures under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). It was decided that retaining seized property beyond 365 days without ongoing proceedings is confiscatory and violates Article 300A of the Constitution. This landmark judgment delineates the scope of s. 8(3) of the PMLA, emphasizing that seized property must be returned if not related to active legal proceedings, thus balancing investigation needs with constitutional property rights. This decision marks a significant step towards protecting individual rights against arbitrary state action. For a detailed understanding, please read the full article authored by our associate Mr. Aditya Gupta: https://lnkd.in/gEntvh3k #MetalegalAdvocates #MetalegalCourtRuling #PMLA #DelhiHighCourt #ConstitutionalRights #PropertySeizure #JudicialInterpretation #Article300A #LegalPrecedent

The Delhi High Court today rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to block an article published by The Print stating that RAW had shut its operations in North America. To read full article, click link below 👇 https://rb.gy/cvxdx0 . . Lawstreet Journal #lsjjudiciary #lawstreetj #DelhiHighCourt #PILRejection #MediaFreedom #LegalDecision #ThePrintArticle #FreedomOfSpeech #JudicialRuling #LegalVerdict #PressFreedom #CourtJudgment #InformationAccuracy #RightToInformation #LegalDispute #PublicInterest #MediaAccountability #india #legalnews

LawChef Delhi High Court: Prosecution must fully disclose all evidence intended for the case, prohibiting partial or piecemeal revelations.👩⚖️ ➡️The Delhi High Court stressed the importance of complete disclosure of incriminating evidence by the prosecution before charging the accused. ➡️The court emphasized that this disclosure is essential to ensure the accused has a fair chance to prepare their defense adequately. ➡️It highlighted the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which includes the concept of a speedy trial. ➡️The court warned against the prosecution introducing new documents unexpectedly during the trial, which could unfairly disadvantage the accused. ➡️It also mentioned that while corrections can be made later in the trial under specific legal provisions, this should not be used to compensate for missing evidence but only for genuine mistakes. ➡️This statement was made in response to the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) appeal challenging a trial court's decision to reject additional video evidence stored on Hard Disks. #law #legalnews #legalcontent #legalupdates #lawchef #lawfirm #lawyers #supremecourt #delhihighcourt #evidence #prohibiting #piecemeal https://lnkd.in/dfniU5Mj https://lnkd.in/dgRD3r8T https://lnkd.in/dkGtNwQU info@lawchef.com

What are the grounds of arrest and the reasons for arrest? In the legal landscape, it is essential to understand the distinction between these two concepts. The Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) shed light on this matter, clarifying the difference between "Grounds of Arrest" and "Reasons for Arrest." The grounds of arrest refer to the legal justifications or specific conditions under which an individual can be lawfully arrested. These grounds are based on the provisions of the law, such as the Criminal Procedure Code, and must be adhered to by law enforcement authorities when carrying out an arrest. They serve as the legal basis for depriving a person of their liberty and initiating legal proceedings against them. On the other hand, the reasons for arrest entail the underlying motives or circumstances that led to the arrest of an individual. While the grounds of arrest are rooted in legal requirements, the reasons for arrest may vary and can encompass a range of factors such as suspicion of committing a crime, threat to public safety, or the need to prevent the individual from fleeing. It is crucial for authorities to clearly distinguish between the grounds of arrest and the reasons for arrest to ensure that arrests are conducted in a lawful and transparent manner. Upholding the principle of due process and respecting the rights of individuals is paramount in any arrest situation to prevent abuse of power and safeguard the rule of law. By comprehending the nuances between the grounds of arrest and the reasons for arrest, legal practitioners, law enforcement officials, and individuals alike can navigate the complex realm of arrest procedures with clarity and adherence to the principles of justice and fairness. This distinction is fundamental to upholding the integrity of the legal system and safeguarding the rights of individuals in society. #SupremeCourt #India #Caselaw Prober #Arrest #IllegalDetention

The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of the judicial roster system, declaring that the Chief Justice’s roster is more than a mere formality and is obligatory for all judges. This statement came as the court overturned an interim bail granted by a Bombay High Court bench, following a roster change, to an individual accused in a money laundering case. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for passing the bail order without proper hearing or justification, highlighting the importance of adhering to the designated roster for case assignments. The apex court’s decision reaffirms the principle of judicial propriety and the structured process for hearing cases, underscoring the necessity for judicial discipline in the assignment and hearing of cases according to the Chief Justice’s roster. To read full article, click link below 👇 https://rb.gy/trgjdk . . Lawstreet Journal #lsjjudiciary #lawstreetj #SupremeCourt #JudicialRosterSystem #LegalPrinciples #JudicialDiscipline #HighCourtDecisions #MoneyLaunderingCase #LegalNews #JudicialPropriety #CaseAssignments #LegalJudgment #RosterChange #LegalProcedure #JudicialObligations #JusticeSystem #LegalAccountability #india #legalnews