Category: Bail Declined

Economic Offences – Economic offences are distinct and warrant a unique approach when considering bail – Due to their inherent complexity, deep-rooted conspiracies, and substantial loss of public funds, these offences should be treated seriously – They pose a significant threat to the country’s financial well-being and can have severe repercussions on its overall development – As a result, economic offences are deemed grave and necessitate special consideration in legal matters.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TARUN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 201 and 420 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 – Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3, 4 and 45 – Delhi Excise Policy Scam – Granting liquor licenses to traders in exchange for bribes – Bail denied – Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial – If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious -Liberty to appellant to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail’s pace in three months.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISH SISODIA — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.of…

Cancellation of Bail – If it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNILAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA BABU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3297…

Penal Code, 1860 – 120B, 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 – Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 – Sections 4, 5, and 6 – Interlocutory applications filed by accused individuals seeking bail – the court agrees with the prosecution that the applicants should approach jurisdictional courts rather than seeking relief from the higher court – However, the court extends the interim bail granted to the applicants for three months to enable them to seek bail from the concerned courts.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PACL — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : A. S. Bopanna and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) IA. No.…

(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. )…

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3 and 4 – Offences of Money Laundering – Cancellation of Bail – Merely because, for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Appellant Vs. ADITYA TRIPATHI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1401…

Rape of a minor by Inspector – High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made by the accused under Section 439 of the Code; however the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY DUBEY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 307, 201, 120B – Murder – Despite and without taking into consideration any of the material forming part of the charge sheet and without even considering the seriousness of the offences alleged; material collected during the investigation, the High Court has by a nonspeaking order has directed to release the accused on bail – Order HC quashed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAHUL GUPTA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal…

Default bail – Filing of a charge sheet is sufficient compliance – where the accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues to him, and subsequently a chargesheet, or a report seeking extension of time is preferred before the Magistrate or any other competent court, the right to default bail would be extinguished

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.