ANU MALHOTRA
Garima Gupta And Other – Appellant
Versus
State And Other – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for regular bail and interim status (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details on allegations against the accused company (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. petitioner's attempts for mediation and resolution (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. progress in mediation and settlements achieved (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. consequences of ongoing insolvency proceedings (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. legal assessments on bail application and accused's rights (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. judgment on granting bail and its terms (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. final disposal of the bail application (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J. - The petitioner-Garima Gupta, presently on interim bail since 04.03.2019 in relation to FIR No.46/2018, PS EOW Cell, Mandir Marg, New Delhi dated 13.03.2018 registered under Sections 406 /409/420/120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, seeks the grant of regular bail in relation thereto. The applicant is indicated to have been arrested on 04.08.2018 and was in custody till 03.03.2019 with the charge sheet having been filed on 25.10.2018. The applicant vide the present bail application apart from seeking regular bail, had also sought the extension of interim
Babba vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 11 SCC 569
Babu Singh vs. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0059/1978 (1978) 1 SCC 579
Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor MANU/SC/0089/1977 : (1978) 1 SCC 240
Gurcharan Singh and Ors. vs. State AIR 1978 SC 179
Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) MANU/SC/0420/1978 : (1978) 1 SCC 118
Mahesh Kumar Bhawsinghka vs. State of Delhi MANU/SC/2641/2000 : (2000) 9 SCC 383
Moti Ram vs. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0132/1978 : (1978) 4 SCC 47
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/1021/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 694
State of Kerala vs. Raneef MANU/SC/0001/2011: (2011) 1 SCC 784
State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand MANU/SC/0152/1977: (1977) 4 SCC 308
State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi MANU/SC/0677/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 21
Vaman Narain Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/8394/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 281
Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0890/2000 : (2000) 9 SCC 443
Point of Law : Offence alleged against the Appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the Appellants on bail....
The main legal point established is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the decision to grant bail should consider the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that an undertrial cannot be detained beyond half of the maximum sentence without trial, warranting bail under Section 436-A ....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates release under Section 436-A of the CrPC after serving half of the maximum imprisonment period, regardless of the nature of the offence.
The gravity of an offence is a factor to be considered when granting bail, but it is not the only criterion. Other factors to be considered include the stage of the investigation, the nature of the e....
The court established that bail is the rule and imprisonment before trial is the exception; seriousness of charges and severity of punishment are critical in bail considerations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.