Topic
Bombay High Court rules that Call Detail Records (CDR) without corroborative evidence cannot satisfy the Section 37 NDPS Act twin-test for bail denial. The judgment underscores that mere telephonic contact does not establish guilt, setting a precedent for bail jurisprudence in NDPS cases.
Bombay HC's Nagpur Bench granted bail to an accused in a Rs. 1.58 crore Ponzi scheme, recognizing his minor role and victim-like status in the fraudulent network marketing scheme. The court held that mere signatory status without active involvement in the primary fraud does not justify prolonged detention under BNS, MPID Act, and IT Act.
Bombay High Court rules that arrest and bail denial under the NDPS Act cannot rely solely on a co-accused's custodial statement if no contraband is recovered from the accused. The judgment reinforces that Section 29 conspiracy charges require corroborative evidence beyond mere statements, impacting bail jurisprudence in non-commercial quantity cases.
Bombay High Court grants bail in an NDPS case, ruling that a seized greenish leafy substance did not prima facie meet the statutory definition of 'Ganja' under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act. The decision underscores that intermediate quantity cases hinge on precise statutory interpretation, impacting bail eligibility for similar offences.
Bombay High Court rules that passive signatory status in government tender irregularities, without proof of active involvement, does not justify prolonged detention under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The ruling reinforces bail jurisprudence by distinguishing nominal participation from culpable conduct, impacting public officials facing similar allegations.
Bombay HC Nagpur granted bail to a 21-year-old accused in a POCSO case, holding that consensual romantic relationships between minors and young adults must be distinguished from criminal offences. The court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates Article 21, even where the victim’s minority is established.
Bombay High Court rules that former directors cannot be held liable under the MPID and BUDS Acts for company misconduct post-resignation unless personal misappropriation is proven. The judgment clarifies the limited scope of director liability in financial offences, offering critical protection for ex-directors facing criminal charges.