Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Wadhwan Brothers Last Week

Must Read

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority...

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner....

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Follow us

A Single Bench of Bombay High Court of Justice Smt. Bharati Dangre gave an order in the case of Kapil Wadhwan & Another v. Directorate of Enforcement, in which the court granted bail to the accused.

Facts of the Case

An ECIR was lodged against Kapil Wadhwan and Dheeraj Wadhwan by the Enforcement Directorates on 7th March 2020, and they have been in judicial custody since 10th May 2020. On 14th May, the accused were presented before the special court and from there were remanded to police custody. On 27th May, they were remanded to judicial custody. The main issue before the court, in this case, was:

“Whether in computing 90 days or 60 days as contemplated in Section 167(2)(a) of Cr.P.C, the day of remand is to be included or excluded?”

Applicant’s Arguments

The counsel for the applicant submitted that:

  1. The period of 60 days (from the day of remand of the applicants, i.e. 14th May 2020) for filing the complaint expired on 12th July 2020, and therefore on 13th July, application for granting bail was filed in the special court.
  2. However, on the same day, i.e. 13th July, an application was moved by the respondent to extend the judicial custody for one more day, i.e. till 14th July. As a result, judicial custody was increased. On 14th July, the special court judge refused the argument of default bail to be given to the applicant.
  3. The accused are charged under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, under which the punishment is 7 years imprisonment, and as per the provision of sec. 167(2)(a), the accused should be released after the expiry of 60 days if the authorities do not file the complaint.
  4. The special judge did not include the day when the accused were sent to remand and stated that the 60 days expires on 15th July 2020.
  5. In Deepak Satyavan Kudalkar vs. The state of Maharashtra, it was held by the Bombay High Court that the period provided under Section 167 of CRPC should include the day of the remand/order also and the same cannot be excluded.

Respondent’s Arguments

The counsel for the respondent submitted that, the judgment on which the applicant supports its case is bad in law as per the apex court judgment of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustam, followed by another judgment Ravi Prakash v. the State of Bihar

Court’s Observations

The Court extensively dealt with several judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and different High Courts. The Court, other than the cases relied upon the parties, also analysed the judgments given by the Supreme Court, including Chaganti Satyanarayanan & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupama J. Kulkarni and Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra. They observed that while calculating 60/90 days provided under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the date of remand and not the date of arrest shall be calculated. In the present case, the special court’s order that 60 days was completed on 15th July is bad in law.

Court’s Decision

The Court gave the following orders:

  1. The accused are granted bail and have to deposit one lakh rupees each as a personal bond for guarantee.
  2. They cannot leave India without the permission of the special court. The accused Dheeraj Wadhwan was asked to surrender his passport to the ED.
  3. The argument of the Additional Solicitor General that the court’s decision should be stayed because he wants to appeal for testing the question of law propounded by the court was rejected on the ground that once the indefeasible right of 60 days of the grant of default bail accrued, the same cannot be stayed and this is supported by the Apex Court judgment in the Kasi case.

    Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

Kerala High Court Disposes of Writ Petition on Grounds That Reliefs Sought Are Already in Process of Being Granted, Directs State to Complete the...

Excerpt A single-judge bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Shircy V. gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. This writ is filed by...

Supreme Court Directs Government To Provide Free Education To Minor Children of Rape Victims

The Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi was directed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday to make sure that minor children of rape victims are ensured free education till they attain the age of 14 years. The Court made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman who claimed that she belonged to the SC/ST group from Jharkhand. She was forced by a man after which her father lodged a complaint.

Aadhar Review Plea Rejected in a 4:1 Verdict by Supreme Court

The petition seeking the re-examination of the 2018 Aadhar Verdict which declares the Aadhar act constitutional and valid was dismissed by a 5-judge bench in a 4:1 verdict. In January the petitions were considered by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan, and B R Gavai in the chamber and the order was up on the website on Wednesday.

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -