Topic- Anticipitary bail
Name of the Case- RAJESH PRATAP GIRI V. STATE OF UP 2021 SC 140
Bench- Justice NV Ramana, Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose
Held- SC STATED THAT ANTICIPATORY BAIL ONCE GRANTED DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY END WITH THE FILING OF CHARGE SHEET
Section 438 CRPC talks about anticipatory bail.
The validity of the anticipitory bail was in question here. Nothing is mentioned in crpc related to this.The tradition that was followed by the courts was that once charge sheet is shown than instead of anticipatory bail regular bail should be issued.
Earlier different high courts had different opinions on this matter.
The Allahabad HC and several other HC’s had earlier given a contrary judgement
2. Topic – Cheque dishonor
Name of the Case- Sumeti Vij v. Paramount Tech Fab Industries LL 2021 SC 149
Bench – Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice Ajay Rastogi
Held- The court stated t that section 313 of crpc statement of the accussed is not a substantive evidence to rebut presumption under section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for consideration.
Sec 139 – “Presumption in favour of holder” It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
States that Presumption that – cheque issued was issued in respect of a debt
The Sc in respect to that has stated that stated in its latest judgement that section 313 of crpc statement of the accused is not a substantive evidence to rebut presumption under section 139 of the NI Act.
Section 313. Power to examine the accused.
(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons- case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.
Topic-Summoning of an additional accussed
Name of the case – Sartaj Singh v. State of Hariyana LL 2021 Sc 161
Bench – Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Shah
Held- Accussed Can be summoned under section 319 of the crpc even on the basis of Examination in chief of witness.
Section 319 of the crpc talks about summoning of Additional accussed
319 comes into action when a witness says that along with the accussed there was another person also or when accussed is presenting himself as witness after compliance of section 315 of crpc and he states that along with him there was another person involved in the commission of crime.
Earlier the additional accussed was summoned only after examination in chief and cross examination of witness was done.
But in the present case the Appex court held that the additional accussed can be summoned under section 319 of the crpc even on the basis of examination in chief of the witness and the court need not to wait till his cross examination.