Police atrocities

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 250
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar
The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma
Criminal Appeal Nos. 125-126 of 2003
Indresh Kumar
v.
Ram Phal
{Decided on 06/01/2010}
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Navin Chawla, Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Manjit Singh (for Kamal Mohan Gupta), Mr. K.C. Rajput (for M/s. I.M. Nanavati Associates), Advocates.
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 218, 323 and 342--Public servant--Voluntary causing hurt and wrongful confinement--Police atrocities--Case has a long history as well as political overtones--Illegal detention of appellant's father by the police--Appellant was beaten up by the respondent with other 6 accused and a false case u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered against him--A Fracture was found on appellant's left foot--On demonstrations by a political party about the alleged police atrocities, the District and Sessions Judge, was appointed as the inquiry officer---Respondent No. 1 with other 6 co-accused were found guilty of offences--Trial Court acquitted 6 accused persons while convicted respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 218 and 342, IPC--High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent and acquitted him of all the charges--Revision filed against the acquittal of other co-accused also dismissed--Appeal--High Court ought to have given some reasons regarding the acquittal of those six persons before dismissing the criminal revision--High Court had not taken into consideration any of the evidences of prosecution witnesses--Once it is found that the High Court had not taken into consideration any of vital pieces of evidence, difficult to uphold the order of the High Court--Impugned judgment of the High Court, set aside--Matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration--Appeal allowed. (P.12 to 15)

Rape--Bail--Anticipatory Bail

2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. M-6137 of 2009
Radhey Sham Kapoor
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 20/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shumaila Parvez, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior DAG Haryana.
For the Complainant: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Rape--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Petitioner’s son who was stated to be mentally retarded married to prosecutrix who was a divorcee--Allegation that she for a long period was raped by petitioner who was her father-in-law and daughter was born from loins of petitioner--Petitioner ready to under take DNA Test--Samples already taken to be sent to laboratory--Petitioner to remain on pre-arrest bail till the receipt of DNA report--Trial Court shall decide the regular bail application after taking into consideration report of DNA--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 323, 506, 120-B. (Paras 2 & 5)