Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Bail Declined

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…

Bail Declined

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 336 and 427 – Murder – Cancellation of Bail — The Supreme Court found the High Court’s orders lacked detailed consideration of facts, especially given the severity of the crime and the specific naming of the respondents in the FIR – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders, cancelled the bail granted to the respondents, and directed them to surrender to custody

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AQEEL AHMAD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Declined

Grant of Bail – Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order lacked legal sustenance as it did not properly consider the detailed evidence against respondent no.2. – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for brief reasons in bail decisions, as established by precedent – The appeal is allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and respondent no.2 was given three weeks to surrender – The order does not prejudice subsequent proceedings or bar fresh bail applications.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM MURTI SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sudhansu Dhulia and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Declined

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.

Mar 9, 2024 sclaw

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…

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