Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
UIn certain cases the owner has to pay from his own pocket. Especially when there’s a material breach of policy condition or when the claim is not covered under policy.
Technically the insurance company will have to pay(due to a judhement of supreme court) but they reserve a right to recover that amount from the owner.
UIt might be depending on other facts. People don’t understand that getting a flat is different from ownership over a land+house. Anything other than you flat interior is community space and can be regulated as per HoA by laws.UCourt dosent check victims criminal records. Further, it has no relevance in this case as i said, triple test of bail+no criminal antecedents is satisfied and hence he can be released on bail. We dont need to do a full trial for releasing a person on bail.Ans again, they didnt produce the social media posts before the court even after 5/6 months.
People here dont understand the principle that liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed in a casual manner. If the court starts to impose a rule that you’ve to prove you’re innocent before you get bail, no one is getting put in bail.
As a lawyer i can say that even i can file a completely false FIR in such a manner that without doing anything you would have to go to jail for atleast a week. Without these rules for bail, you would be inside for months or even years without even actually doing anything.
UThe triple test for bail is that the accused, if released on bail, has no possibility of1.Flight risk
2. Tampering with evidence
3. Tampering with witness
The test is satisfied in this case and hence he was released on bail. The maximum this order can be challenged, if it can be, is on ground the order asks accused to marry the victim [on the ground that the condition of bail has no nexus with the object of imposing such condition.] The court was absolutely right to grant bail in such a case.
The guy is 26 years old. Is in jail since September 2024. Has no criminal antecedents and the prosecution has clearly not established a prima facie case. These type of cases are really common and it would be no surprise if it was indeed a fake case.
The investigation has been going on since atleast 5 months. If the girl or the prosecution had any evidence regarding actual involvement or even the circulation of video in social media, they would have opposed the bail by placing those evidences on record, which they didnt. It indicates that there’s infact more to this case than it looks.
The only mistake in this case is the judge not outlining the reason as to why he asked the accused to marry the victim within 3 months. But even that cannot be said as we dont know what conversation or submissions were made in the courtroom. Bail should absolutely have been granted in this case.
This sub is filled with non-lawyers or wannabe lawyers who dont have any actual knowledge on working of laws and are quick to give baseless advice and in addition to that the blatant misogyny in this sub. Just a bunch of teenagers maybe who think every law is against them.
UThey dont have it. Otherwise a prima facie case would have been established.Further the order also says that “There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant islanguishing in jail since 21.9.2024. In case, the applicant isreleased on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.”
The case has been filed before September and any evidence regarding his actual involvement, if any, would be there and they could have produced it during bail. They didnt. If the case is proved to be false at a later stage, which it prima facie appears to be, then how are you going to compensate a young man of 26 years age who suffered unnecessarily in jail. He has already been in jail for more than 3 months. And the triple test for bail is you’ve not be in a flight risk; and not be in a position to tampering with evidence or witness, which he can not. Hence the bail. This is the exact reason why Arvind Kejriwal was granted bail too.
