Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - 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

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw