Scribd
Upload
7 views3 pages

Assignment

The document outlines six legal cases where the Supreme Court of India emphasized the principles surrounding arrest and bail, particularly under the CrPC. Key rulings include that arrests should not be routine without justification, and that prolonged detention without trial violates the presumption of innocence. The cases illustrate the importance of adhering to legal procedures and protecting personal liberty in criminal proceedings.

Uploaded by

mailtoshb2004
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views3 pages

Assignment

The document outlines six legal cases where the Supreme Court of India emphasized the principles surrounding arrest and bail, particularly under the CrPC. Key rulings include that arrests should not be routine without justification, and that prolonged detention without trial violates the presumption of innocence. The cases illustrate the importance of adhering to legal procedures and protecting personal liberty in criminal proceedings.

Uploaded by

mailtoshb2004
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

ASSIGNMENT

1. ARNESH KUMAR V. STATE OF BIHAR

 Citation: (2014) 8 SCC 273

 Bench: Justices Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Pinaki Chandra Ghose

 Facts: The petitioner was accused under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. He sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Sessions
Court and the High Court.

 Legal Principle: The Supreme Court emphasized that arrests should not be made
routinely and without reasonable justification. It mandated compliance with Sections
41 and 41A of the CrPC, requiring police officers to justify the necessity of an arrest
and to issue a notice of appearance before arresting individuals for offenses
punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

 Applicability: The accused was arrested three years after the initial complaint without
being served a Section 41A notice, indicating non-compliance with the guidelines
established in this judgment.

2. SIDDHARTH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

 Citation: (2022) 1 SCC 676

 Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh

 Facts: The accused was cooperating with the investigation and had not been arrested
during the probe. Upon filing of the chargesheet, the magistrate issued a warrant for
his arrest.

 Legal Principle: The Supreme Court held that if an accused has cooperated with the
investigation and there is no necessity for custodial interrogation, arrest is not
mandatory upon filing of the chargesheet.

 Applicability: The client has been in custody for eight months post-chargesheet, with
no indication of the need for further interrogation, aligning with the principles laid
down in this case.
3. SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

 Citation: (2022) 10 SCC 51

 Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh

 Facts: The case addressed the issue of arrests in offenses punishable with
imprisonment of up to seven years.

 Legal Principle: The Supreme Court reiterated that arrest is not mandatory for
offenses punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. It emphasized the
importance of adhering to the procedure under Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC.

 Applicability: The offenses in this case fall under this category, and the lack of
compliance with Section 41A strengthens the argument for bail.

4. SANJAY CHANDRA V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

 Citation: (2012) 1 SCC 40

 Bench: Justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad

 Facts: The appellants were accused in the 2G spectrum case, involving economic
offenses. They were in custody during the trial.

 Legal Principle: The Supreme Court held that the severity of the offense alone does
not justify denial of bail. It emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the
principle of presumption of innocence.

 Applicability: The client has been in custody for an extended period without the trial
commencing, making this precedent relevant.

5. DATARAM SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

 Citation: (2018) 3 SCC 22

 Bench: Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta


 Facts: The appellant was denied bail by the High Court despite the absence of
compelling reasons for continued detention.

 Legal Principle: The Supreme Court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the
exception. It emphasized that personal liberty should not be curtailed without
substantial justification.

 Applicability: This case supports the argument that the client's continued detention
without compelling reasons is unjustified.

6. INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI V. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

 Citation: (2007) 12 SCC 1

 Bench: Justices Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia

 Facts: The appellants were subjected to criminal proceedings that were deemed to be
an abuse of the legal process.

 Legal Principle: The Supreme Court held that courts have inherent powers to prevent
abuse of the process and to secure the ends of justice. It emphasized that arrest should
not be used as a tool for harassment.

 Applicability: The delayed arrest of the client, three years after the complaint,
without proper justification, may be viewed as an abuse of the legal process.

You might also like