As per the Code of Civil Procedure, whenever a suit is filed, the Court issues summon to the defendant to appear before the Court and answer the claim of the plaintiff by way of filing a written statement within a stipulated period provided under Order 8 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code (hereafter referred to as CPC)
The recent arrest and subsequent detention of Aryan Khan, the son of Bollywood superstar, Shah Rukh Khan, following a raid on a luxury yacht by the Narcotics Control Bureau has again rekindled the discussion in the legal fraternity as to whether offences relating to small quantity drugs or psychotropic substances are bailable or not. This paper is a quest in search of an answer in this regard.
The division Bench of the High Court of J&K&L has disposed of a long pending appeal after twelve years and has ultimately upheld the order of conviction passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Reasi whereby the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Recently, the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court have answered some substantial question of criminal law and have framed certain guidelines regarding the power of the Court in summoning the additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
The Bench of Justice Mohan Lal has observed that the High Court having the territorial/geographical limits where the offences are allegedly committed has the power/jurisdiction u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for granting anticipatory bail, and High Court of each State shall exercise its powers within the State without encroaching upon or interfering within the jurisdiction of other High Courts.
The Court has observed that the period during which an accused has not been in custody or has been enlarged on bail cannot be computed while calculating the period of custody for the purposes of considering the default bail plea.
The Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that the revision petition filed at the instance of aggrieved party would attract the provisions of limitation.
The Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has observed that under Section 195 (1) (b) CrPC, the Magistrate is debarred from taking cognizance of the offence under Section 211 RPC in the absence of a complaint in writing of the Magistrate himself, in that, the offence must have been committed within “in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any court”.
Failure of the respondents to place the representation submitted by the detenue before the Advisory Board and its consequent non-consideration indisputably amounts to violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the bench observed.
The Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has observed in a petition that the liability cast upon the State in law under law of Torts to compensate the petitioners on account of negligence and carelessness would lie within the parameters of “strict liability”.