Category: Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 528 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 507 — Allegation of rape based on false promise of marriage — Relationship continued for three years; physical relations established multiple times — Complainant, an educated and married woman, engaged in the relationship voluntarily and without protest or complaint until the break-up — Lodging of FIR three months after the last physical contact, subsequent to the appellant refusing a demand for money — Held, the relationship was consensual; physical intimacy in a long-standing, functioning relationship, which later turns acrimonious, cannot be retrospectively branded as rape — Refusal to fulfill a monetary demand led to the institution of criminal proceedings, amounting to an abuse of the court machinery — FIR and Charge-sheet quashed. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 16, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33, 40, 41)

2025 INSC 1351 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMADHAN S/O SITATRAM MANMOTHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTHRA AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 — Cancellation of Bail — Murder trial (Section 302 IPC) — Accused granted bail by Supreme Court subject to stringent conditions (confinement to Kolkata, daily attendance at Police Station) — Application for cancellation of bail moved by victim’s relative alleging breach of conditions, witness intimidation, and resultant unfair trial — Background of trial characterized by State bias favoring accused, witnesses turning hostile, and failed attempt by State to withdraw prosecution (U/S 321 Cr. PC) — Court acknowledges serious concerns regarding fairness of trial and State’s conduct (acting as “real facilitator” for the accused) — However, specific breach of bail conditions by the accused influencing witnesses not conclusively established — Bail granted partially based on long incarceration (5 years) and delay in trial conclusion — Given the advanced stage of trial, no useful purpose served by cancelling bail now — Application for cancellation of bail rejected.

2025 INSC 1360 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SK. MD. ANISUR RAHAMAN Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Suspension of Sentence — Bail Pending Appeal — Appellant incarcerated for over seven and a half years, appeal pending before High Court for years — Sufficient grounds exist for suspension of sentence and release on bail during appeal pendency — Order of High Court declining to suspend sentence set aside

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNCHUN KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2025 [Arising out…

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 298, 299, 296, 115(2), 351(2) & Chhattisgarh Religion Act, 1968 — Section 4 — Bail in anticipation of arrest — Appellant joined investigation as directed by the court — High Court rejected bail application — Supreme Court considered materials on record and found appeal deserving acceptance — Appellant admitted to bail in anticipation of arrest.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.4561/2025 [Arising out of…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 394, 395, and 397 — Robbery and Attempt to Commit Robbery — Conviction and Sentencing — Appeal for suspension of sentence and bail — Appellants convicted by Trial Court for offences under Sections 394, 395, and 397 IPC. High Court confirmed conviction under Section 397 IPC and modified sentence to 8 years rigorous imprisonment, while holding no separate conviction for Sections 394 and 395 IPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUKESH KUMAR MEHTA @ MITHILESH KUMAR MEHTA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 306 —Abetment of Suicide — The appellant sought anticipatory bail after the High Court rejected her plea — The State of Punjab acknowledged her participation in the investigation and stated no further custodial interrogation was needed — The Supreme Court granted her anticipatory bail, considering the State of Punjab’s submission that she cooperated with the investigation — The decision was based on the recognition that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary and that anticipatory bail would be appropriate — The Supreme Court concluded that appellant should be granted anticipatory bail, subject to any conditions imposed by the Trial Court — The State would retain the right to seek bail cancellation if conditions were violated.

2025 INSC 49 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAMTA KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of…

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.

2024 INSC 739 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. SENTHIL BALAJI — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S Oka and…

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.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EZHILARASAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R.…

You missed