Criminal Laws: Dara Singh Case: No justification for interfering insomeone’s religious belief

Standard
This is a case were conviction for life imprisonment of one Dara Singh, who set some missionaries on fire, was confirmed by Supreme Court on 21.1.2011

A clarification was made in para 75 of judgement by Supreme Court on 25.1.2011, and earlier lines were replaced with following lines as under:

“There is no justification for interfering in someone’s religious belief by any means.”

Though this is one line clarification, it is warning to all people who engage in ‘Religion Conversion Methods Applied on Poor”

Re: 2011(1) SCALE 741

Haresh Raichura
18/6/2012

Criminal Laws: Bail after conviction is not matter of right for convict. Anyone can oppose

Standard

After an accused is convicted, he files an appeal in Higher Court. Here he prays for bail.

In legal words, this is called Suspension of Sentence.

In case of Kanak Rekha Naik, Supreme Court has said two things:

1) A convict is not entitled to be granted bail as if it is his right. High Court has to record reasons for granting bail.

2) Anyone can file an Intervenor Application and can argue that the Convict should not be granted bail.

Re: 2011(1) SCALE 736 page 740 para 11,12

Haresh Raichura
18/6/2012