TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner granted bail under Section 21(4) NIA Act after four years custody with slow trial progress</h1> <h3>MUKESH SALAM Versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.</h3> The SC allowed the petitioner's bail application under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008, reversing the Chhattisgarh HC Division ... Denial of bail - offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 17, 38(1)(2), 40, 22-A and 22-C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and cognate provisions of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Act 2005 and the Indian Penal Code 1860 - HELD THAT:- The continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice. There is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner is in custody since 6 May 2020. The petitioner is directed be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Kanker, in connection with FIR No 9 of 2020 - petition disposed off. The Supreme Court of India, in its order dated 16 February 2024, allowed the petitioner's bail application under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008, reversing the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh's denial. The petitioner faced charges under multiple sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Act 2005, and the Indian Penal Code 1860, related to FIR No. 9 of 2020.Key legal reasoning included: - Out of 14 accused, 12 had already been granted bail by the High Court or Supreme Court.- The trial progress was slow, with only 40 out of 100 prosecution witnesses examined.- The petitioner had been in custody since 6 May 2020, and there was 'no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial.'- The Court held that 'continued detention of the petitioner would not subserve the ends of justice.'Bail was granted subject to conditions including weekly reporting to the nearest police station and mandatory attendance at trial dates unless excused by the trial court. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
