Category: Anticipatory Bail

The Court considered the principles of anticipatory bail and the role of the accused, noting that the prime accused had been granted bail and the appellant’s role was secondary – The Court analyzed the factors to be considered for anticipatory bail, as laid out in previous judgments, focusing on the nature of the accusation and the role of the accused – The Supreme Court confirmed the order granting anticipatory bail to Petitioner, setting aside the order of cancellation, with the condition of cooperation in the investigation and trial.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SABITA PAUL AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol,…

Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 – Sections 3 and 4 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506 and 149 – – The respondent opposes anticipatory bail, asserting that the petitioner’s involvement is established – They contend that the seriousness of the charges warrants denial of bail – The court acknowledges that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy – It emphasizes that such relief should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances – The court considers the petitioner’s status as an absconder and weighs the evidence against them – After thorough consideration, the court rules on the anticipatory bail application – Appeal Dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIKANT UPADHYAY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

High Court did not consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, the circumstances peculiar to the respondent, and the larger interest of the public or the State – The Court also notes that the respondent failed in his fundamental duty as a police officer and the possibility of his influencing the witnesses and the investigation was high – The Court holds that the respondent is not entitled to anticipatory bail and directs him to apply for regular bail if arrested.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Appellant Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……of…

Anticipatory Bail – Breach of contract – Civil Dispute – Mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged – Anticipatory bail granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAY SHRI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Anticipatory bail – Cruelty to wife – Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. ASFAK ALAM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…

(CrPC) – Section 438 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120­B – Anticipatory Bail – – land scams not only result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder socio­economic progress – – Order granting anticipatory bail is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRATIBHA MANCHANDA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.