Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 13 To February 19, 2023

Tajinder Singh alias Happy Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

Abdul Rashid Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

Prof S K Bhalla Vs Haq Nawaz Nehru 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

Gopal Krishan & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

Parwez Samuel Koul & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

Santosh Kumar & Ors Vs Kuldeep Singh and another 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

Judgements/Orders:

[PIT-NDPS Act] Threat To Public Health Ground For Detention If Authority Satisfied That Detenu Indulged In Illicit Drug Trafficking: JKL High Court

Case Title: Tajinder Singh alias Happy Vs UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 22

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that merely because the detaining Authority among other grounds has also observed that the activities of the detenu pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people would not render the impugned order of detention under Section 3 of the PIT-NDPS Act illegal.

Cross FIRs Permissible In Case Of Two Different Versions Of Parties With Regard To Same Occurrence: JKL High Court

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 23

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that there cannot be two FIRs with regard to the same occurrence but in cases of two different versions on part of rival parties with regard to the same occurrence, registration of cross FIRs is permissible.

"It cannot be said that in the instant case, the registration of FIR on the application of the petitioner would amount to registration of second FIR regarding same offence. Rather this Court is of the considered view that the same would be a cross FIR and the registration of the same, is not impermissible under law", the bench underscored.

Accused Can't Choose Place Of Prosecution By Taking Refuge Of Unfounded Security Apprehensions: JKL High Court

Case Title: Prof S K Bhalla Vs Haq Nawaz Nehru

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 24

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a petition filed by social activist Prof. SK Bhalla seeking transfer of a defamation complaint, filed against him by a journalist in Doda, to Jammu.

The bench of Justice M A Chowdhary said that an accused cannot be allowed to have a place of his choice to be prosecuted by taking refuge of unfounded personal security apprehensions.

'Pseudo Police Report' Filed U/S 173 CrPC Cannot Defeat Right Of Accused To Default Bail: JKL High Court

Case Title: Gopal Krishan & Ors Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 25

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a 'pseudo police report' under section 173 CrPC, even if filed within time frame of section 167 CrPC, cannot be given legal sanctity to betray the statutory/default bail right of an accused in a case.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

"This right, upon getting accrued, is given straight away on asking of the entitled accused notwithstanding the purported gravity of the accusation of offence/s against the accused under pre-trial custody".

Multiple Criminal Proceedings By Complainant Over Same Allegations Violate Accused's Rights Under Articles 21 & 22 Constitution: JKL High Court

Case Title: Parwez Samuel Koul & Ors Vs UT of J&K.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 26

The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court recently observed that filing of multiple criminal proceedings against the same accused by an informant for the same alleged offence is prohibited in law.

"Getting an accused entangled in multiple criminal proceedings in same alleged offence would be an abuse of process of law, which cannot stand the scrutiny of the Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution," a bench comprising Justices Javed Iqbal Wani observed relying on Apex Court's decision in Tarak Dash Mukharjee vs State of Uttar Pradesh".

[S.7 Armed Forces Special Powers Act] Sanction To Prosecute Required If Action, No Matter How Illegal, Is In Discharge Of Duty: JKL High Court

Case Title: Santosh Kumar & Ors Vs Kuldeep Singh and another.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 27

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that to prosecute an Armed Forces personnel for an alleged illegal act committed in connected with the discharge of official duty, sanction to prosecute under Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act is required, no matter how illegal the act may be.

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"if an act is connected with the discharge of official duty of an accused, the said act is certainly under the colour of his duty, no matter how illegal the act may be, but if the offence is committed entirely outside the scope of the duty of police officer/official, there is no requirement of previous sanction. In short, in order to attract the provisions of Section 7 of AFSP Act, it has to be shown that there is a reasonable connection between the act and performance of duty in execution of powers under the Act."