A man and his wife applied for anticipatory bail to Allahabad High Court because they were afraid that the man’s sister-in-law might bring a case against them under Section 498. The court granted them bail on condition that they pay the sister-in-law Rs 2,000 per month as maintenance. If they did not pay her, the bail would stand cancelled. They appealed and the Supreme Court held that there was no reason to direct them to pay maintenance. It said that while deciding a bail application, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court to decide a civil dispute and asked the high court to decide the matter afresh, based on the merits of the case (Mahesh Chandra vs State of UP and others).
Detention set aside
A habeas corpus petition was filed seeking the release of a person detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act. When the high court dismissed the petition, an appeal was lodged before the Supreme Court. The court pointed out that the Act defines a ‘goonda’ as a person who ‘habitually’ commits offences, that is, there should be evidence that he or she has repeatedly committed crimes. The detention order in this case, however, referred to just one instance and there was nothing to show that the accused committed crimes ‘habitually’. So the court set aside the order(R. Kalavathi vs State of Tamil Nadu and others).
A landlord filed a case against his tenant in the Delhi High Court, asking her to vacate his house, as he needed the space for his own use. The court rejected his petition on the ground that he had alternative accommodation available at the house owned by his wife. The landlord appealed in the Supreme Court, contending that his wife’s house was unsuitable for use but that he was willing to offer it to his tenant if she vacated his premises. The tenant did not agree to the exchange. The Supreme Court held that when the tenant herself found the accommodation unsuitable then the landlord’s petition could not be dismissed. It ordered the tenant to vacate the premises within a specified period (Peshkar Singh vs Ansuiya).