Supreme Court of India Judgements

47030 Judgements hosted as on 11/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Bail Declined

Bail Declined Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Annulment of Bail — Distinction — Cancellation of bail is generally based on supervening circumstances and post-bail misconduct; Annulment of an order granting bail is warranted when the order is vitiated by perversity, illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind — High Court granted bail ignoring prior cancellation of bail due to commission of murder by accused (while on bail) of a key witness in the first case, and failed to consider the gravity of offenses (including under SC/ST (POA) Act) and threat to fair trial — Such omissions and reliance on irrelevant considerations (existence of civil dispute) render the bail order perverse and unsustainable, justifying annulment by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1483 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAKSHMANAN Vs. STATE THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…

Bail Declined Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Quashing of FIR — Protection from Arrest — Directions for time-bound investigation — High Court, while declining to quash the FIR, directed the completion of investigation within 90 days and granted protection from arrest till the court takes cognizance (following ‘Shobhit Nehra v. State of U.P.’) — ‘Legality’: Such directions granting protection from arrest while refusing to quash are contrary to the law established by the Supreme Court, particularly ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra’ and ‘State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani’ — Granting protection from arrest in this manner amounts to an order under Section 438 CrPC (Anticipatory Bail) without satisfying the statutory conditions and is legally unsustainable and inappropriate — High Courts must scrupulously avoid passing blanket orders of “no arrest” or “no coercive steps” while dismissing or disposing of quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution. (Paras 4, 15, 16)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1480 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER Vs. MOHD ARSHAD KHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

Bail Declined

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Locus Standi — An aggrieved party, including the complainant or father of the deceased, has the requisite locus standi to seek cancellation/annulment of bail granted to the accused, as the power under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. may be invoked not only by the State but also by any aggrieved party. (Paras 10, 10.1, 10.3)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1367 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGENDRA PAL SINGH Vs. RAGHVENDRA SINGH ALIAS PRINCE AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Declined Cancellation of Bail

Considerations for cancellation — Principles are distinct from those for granting bail — Bail should not ordinarily be cancelled unless procured by fraud/misrepresentation, allegations are grave impacting society, release creates fear/terror, or accused may abscond/tamper with evidence — Where allegations are severe, shaking conscience of the Court, and there is an imminent likelihood of accused adversely affecting fair trial, bail is liable to be cancelled.

Jun 1, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 788 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SEKH JAMIR HOSSAIN AND OTHERS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Declined

Cancellation of Bail — Factors for Consideration — Child Trafficking — Appeals preferred by victims (kith and kin of trafficked children) assailing High Court orders granting bail to accused involved in a large-scale, organized, interstate child trafficking racket — The offences alleged involve kidnapping, buying, and selling of minor children primarily from impoverished backgrounds, punishable under Ss. 363, 311 & 370(5) IPC —High Court’s approach found to be callous, overlooking critical aspects including the organized nature of the crime and the subsequent absconding of several accused post-bail, thereby jeopardizing the trial.

Apr 16, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 482 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PINKI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Bail Declined

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to respondent no.1 —The High Court’s decision was not in line with established principles for granting bail — The material on record indicates respondent no.1’s involvement in the scam — The Court emphasized the need to consider the nature of the accusation, the role of the accused, and the potential impact on the trial when granting bail —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 636 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE AND OTHERS Vs. VITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Bail Declined Prevention of Money Laundering Act

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483(3) — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 4 and 44(1)(b) — The Supreme Court has set aside orders of the Delhi High Court that stayed the bail granted to appellant accused in a money laundering case — The court observed that the power to grant an interim stay of an order granting bail can only be exercised in exceptional cases where a strong prima facie case of the existence of grounds for cancellation of bail is made out — The court further clarified that as a normal rule, ex parte stay of an order granting bail should not be granted and the court must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that the case was an exceptional one — The appeals were allowed on these terms, and the findings recorded in the judgment were only for considering the legality and validity of the order of stay on the order granting bail.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 546 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVINDER SINGH KHURANA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,…

Bail Declined

Criminal Law – Double Murder – The case involves multiple criminal appeals against bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to accused in a double murder – The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused considering the seriousness of the offence and the stage of the trial -The appellant-complainant argued that the accused have a history of criminal activity, were the aggressors in the incident, and there is a risk of them tampering with witnesses – The accused-respondents assured they would not abscond and would cooperate with the trial, highlighting their permanent residence in the village – The Supreme Court quashed the bail orders, directing the accused to surrender, and emphasized that the observations made are not an opinion on the merits of the matter – The Court found that the High Court did not adequately consider the seriousness of the offense, the role of the accused, and their criminal antecedents – The Supreme Court applied established legal principles for bail consideration, focusing on the nature of the accusation, the gravity of the offense, and the likelihood of influencing the trial – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents do not deserve bail and set aside the High Court’s orders, with a provision for the accused to apply for bail under new circumstances at a later stage.

Jul 5, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 438 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJWAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. WASEEM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…

Bail Declined

Bail — The Supreme Court has disposed of two petitions filed by Manish Sisodia, challenging an order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024 — The court has granted liberty to Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or if the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in the next three months — The court has clarified that the observations made in the judgment are only for the disposal of the present appeals and will not influence the trial court on the merits of the case, which will proceed in accordance with law and be decided on the basis of the evidence led — The court has also noted that all disputed factual and legal issues are left open — The Solicitor General has assured that the investigation will be concluded and the final complaint/charge sheet will be filed expeditiously, and at any rate on or before 03.07.2024, after which the trial court will be free to proceed with the trial.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH MANISH SISODIA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Petition(s) for Special Leave…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw
Corporate

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39)

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw