Скачать или смотреть Legal Dictation 100 words per minute, District Court, High Court Judgement

Legal Dictation 100 words per minute, District Court, High Court Judgement

legal dictation 100 wpm
legal dictation 100 speed
legal dictation 80 wpm
legal dictation 90 speed

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 123/2018 under Section 376/328 IPC lodged at P.S. North Vasant Kunj.


At the outset, it has been stated that the charge sheet has already been filed and the Petitioner is appearing before the learned Trial Court. 


Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner was granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2018 and the same is continuing thereafter. He submits that the Petitioner has never misused the liberty granted to him. 


IO also states that the Petitioner had joined the investigation as and

when directed by the IO. 


 Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the charge sheet

has already been filed and the Petitioner was joining the investigation, the interim protection granted to him may be confirmed. Learned

counsel submits that even after filing of the charge sheet, this Court

can grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. To buttress this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court dated 08.09.2002 passed in Appeal 1240/2002

titled Bheem Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr.


Learned counsel for the Complainant submits that this is a serious

case and bail may not be granted. He submits that the Petitioner has

been threatening the complainant/prosecutrix. Learned APP for the State has also opposed the grant of bail.


I have considered the submissions of all the parties.


The basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is bail and not jail. The Supreme Court and this Court have time and again held that the courts must enforce this principle in practice. It is a settled law that denial of

bail amounts to deprivations of personal liberty.


The Supreme Court in Vishal vs. State of

Maharashtra, (2001) 1 SCC 676, while considering a matter relating to the grant of anticipatory bail and after exhaustively analysing the rights under Article 21 inter alia held that great ignominy, humiliation, and disgrace is attached to an arrest. It was further held that an arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community.


In Neeraj Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 6 SCC 66, the Supreme Court inter alia held that grant or rejection of an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has a direct bearing on the fundamental right to life and liberty of an individual. Thus, while considering the grant of bail this

court has to look into the facts and circumstances of the case so as to

ensure that there is no infringement of fundamental rights. Further, it was also inter alia held that Section 438 Cr.P.C. needs to be read

liberally, and considering its beneficial nature, the courts must not read in limitations or restrictions that the legislature have not explicitly provided for.

480 words