Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Bail Granted

Fact That Co-Accused Has Not Surrendered Cannot Be A Ground To Deny Bail

Bysclaw

Jun 2, 2023

“we are of the view that the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused”

appellant had been under custody for two years and 11 months. The bench directed the High Court to reconsider the bail application, particularly taking note of the fact that charges have been framed and 19 prosecution witnesses are proposed to be examined.

 

 

 

 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1578 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3518 of 2023)

SEBIL ELANJIMPALLY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ODISHA Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T
Leave granted.

The impugned order is one by which the application for
bail filed by the appellant has been rejected.
The appellant has been charged for alleged commission
of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant has
been in custody for two years and 11 months. The impugned
order is the order passed in the second bail application.
The earlier bail application came to be rejected on
07.07.2022. It is, in fact, pointed out by the learned
counsel for the State that another attempt at securing bail
from the High Court has failed.
As far as the impugned order goes, we notice that the
following is the reasoning:
“Taking into account that the co-accused, who has
1
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1578/2023(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3518/ 2023)
since been released on bail has not surrendered,
this Court is constrained not to entertain the bail
application of the petitioner.”
Thereafter the Court proceeded to note the case of the
appellant that his father has undergone surgery and the
Court proceeded to direct expeditious disposal of the case.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and also the learned counsel for the State as noted.
The impugned order shows that what has weighed with
the Court is the fact that the co-accused who was released
on bail has not surrendered. It is this factor alone which
we can discern to be the reason to not entertain the bail
application.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the view that the fact that the co-accused who was
released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane
factor to decline bail to the co-accused, namely, the
appellant.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that the
matter must have reconsideration again at the hands of the
High Court. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside. The High Court will take up BLAPL No. 6803/2022
and pass orders on the same in view of the fact that it is a
case where the charges have been framed and 19 prosecution
witnesses are proposed to be examined by the State.
We request the High Court to take up the application
2
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1578/2023(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3518/ 2023)
and dispose of the same at the earliest and if possible,
preferably within a period of two months from the date of
production of the copy of the order.
…………………………………………………………., J.
[ K.M. JOSEPH ]
…………………………………………………………., J.
[ ARAVIND KUMAR ]
New Delhi;
May 18, 2023.
3

By sclaw

Related Post

Bail Granted Prevention of Money Laundering Act

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 3 — Appellant was a Transport Minister in Tamil Nadu and is accused of collecting money for job opportunities in the Transport Department — Multiple FIRs were filed against him, leading to his arrest and judicial custody —The main issue is whether the appellant should be granted bail in connection with the alleged offence under the PMLA —The appellant’s counsel argued that the evidence against him is not substantial, and he has already been in custody for over 14 months — They also cited a similar case (Manish Sisodia) to support their bail plea —The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that there is strong evidence against the appellant, including incriminating documents and large cash deposits — They expressed concerns about the appellant influencing witnesses if released on bail —The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, considering the prolonged incarceration and the unlikely completion of the trial in the near future — The court imposed stringent conditions for bail — The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure he does not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Sep 28, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw