Supreme Court of India Judgements

46940 Judgements hosted as on 30/11/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Bail Declined

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…

Bail Declined

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 302, 149 and 120B – Cancellation of Bail – The complainant’s son was allegedly murdered by the accused (along with others) in a property dispute – Five accused were convicted of murder and other charges, with two others acquitted – The High Court granted bail to three accused (‘A’, ‘C’, and ‘R’) considering their long incarceration and bail granted to two co-accused. – The complainant argues against bail, fearing threats from the accused who are “dreaded criminals.” – He highlights that the High Court wasn’t aware that two accused (‘C’ and ‘R’) allegedly killed a police officer while on trial, further demonstrating their violent nature – The Court acknowledges the oversight of not presenting details about the police officer’s murder to the High Court – The Court cancels bail for ‘C’ and ‘R’ due to their subsequent criminal act – The Court upholds bail for ‘A’ (not involved in the police officer’s murder).

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 325 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JADUNATH SINGH — Appellant Vs. ARVIND KUMAR AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Bail Declined

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B – Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 – Section 7 – Appeal against Grant of Bail by High Court – The main issue is the appropriateness of the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused – The petitioner argues against bail due to the serious nature of the crime, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the influence of the accused over witnesses – The respondents claim they have cooperated with the trial and allegations of threatening witnesses are false – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail orders, citing the seriousness of the crime and the conduct of the accused – The Court found that the High Court did not exercise its discretion judiciously in granting bail – The Court referenced previous cases outlining the principles for bail consideration, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and the potential for influencing witnesses – The Supreme Court concluded that the accused should be taken into custody and the trial should be concluded expeditiously – The judgment emphasizes the importance of a careful and principled approach to granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious crimes and potential witness tampering.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 323 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMAYAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Satish…

You missed

Constitution Environment

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 21 — Right to Life and Healthy Environment — Environmental Degradation: Pollution of Jojari, Bandi, and Luni Rivers in Rajasthan due to untreated industrial effluents and municipal sewage threatens the lives of 2 million people and the ecosystem — This constitutes a gross dereliction of constitutional duty and a direct constitutional injury — The right to a healthy environment, including pollution-free water and air, is an indispensable facet of the right to life under Article 21, reinforced by Articles 48A and 51A(g) — Judicial intervention is warranted when environmental degradation strikes at the foundation of these guarantees. (Paras 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 28)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6), Section 11(12)(a), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(2) — Applicability of Part I, including Section 11, to International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) — Dispute arising from a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) where Respondent No. 1 is foreign company (incorporated in Benin) — BSA stipulates arbitration “will take place in Benin” and is governed by laws of Benin — Held: Dispute is an ICA under Section 2(1)(f) — Under Section 2(2), Part I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India — Designation of Benin as the place of arbitration, coupled with choice of Benin law as governing/curial law, unequivocally establishes Benin as the juridical seat — Indian Courts lack jurisdiction under Section 11 to appoint an arbitrator for a foreign-seated arbitration — Petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator in India is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable. (Paras 2, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw
Tenders

Government Contracts and Tenders — Letter of Intent (LoI) — Legal Nature — An LoI is ordinarily a precursor to a contract, indicating intent to enter into a future agreement, but does not itself create a concluded contract or vested, enforceable rights unless the necessary preconditions are satisfied — A bidder’s commercial expectation that a contract will follow an LoI is not a juridical entitlement — If the LoI explicitly stipulates conditions precedent (like compatibility testing, live demonstration, and cost disclosure) before execution of an agreement/final award letter, the LoI remains provisional and conditional until such prerequisites are met. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 7 — Application by Financial Creditor — Rejection for technical defects — Affidavit Verification — Whether an application under Section 7 of the IBC, verified later than the date of the supporting affidavit, is liable to be rejected at the threshold — Mere filing of a ‘defective’ affidavit (e.g., dated before application verification) does not render the Section 7 application non est and liable to be rejected; such a defect is curable and not fundamental. (Paras 1, 17)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw