𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗘𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝗶𝗹
The Supreme Court has directed High Courts to give adequate priority to criminal appeals where the accused are on bail, especially in cases involving elderly individuals and long-pending matters.
The Court observed that while High Courts typically prioritise appeals of convicts in prison, appeals of those on bail—particularly when a life sentence is involved—should not be indefinitely delayed. If such appeals are dismissed after many years, sending the aged accused back to prison becomes difficult and unjust.
This observation came while deciding a case from Madhya Pradesh, where the High Court had converted a conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), sentencing the accused to the time they had already served. One of the accused was over 80 years old, and others were in their seventies. The crime had occurred nearly 36 years ago.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and A G Masih, acknowledged the massive pendency of criminal appeals in major High Courts and stressed the need for a balanced approach. They highlighted that appeals of elderly convicts on bail, especially in very old cases, must also be taken up for hearing.
The judgment highlights the importance of timely adjudication and equitable treatment, considering the age of the accused and the elapsed time since the offence.
𝗝𝗼𝗶𝗻 mentblue 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁𝘀𝗔𝗽𝗽 : https://lnkd.in/g9gBHk9j
𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 : https://t.me/mentblue
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.
The Delhi High Court, in 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒗𝒔. 𝑵.𝑾.𝑮.𝑬.𝑳 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 (𝑨𝑹𝑩.𝑷. 1318/2024), ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be determined based on Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on March 20, 2025, emphasized that 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶�...
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator even if the arbitration venue is in a foreign country, provided the contract specifies Indian law as the governing law.