Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Bail Declined

Bail Declined Cr P C

Default bail – In a case where an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and thereafter on filing of the chargesheet, a strong case is made out and on special reasons being made out from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime bail can be cancelled on merits

Jan 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. T. GANGI REDDY @ YERRA GANGI REDDY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

Bail Declined

ISRO Spy Case – While granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused, the High Court has neither considered the allegations against the respective accused nor the role played by them nor the position held by them at the time of registering the FIR in the year 1994 nor the role played by them during the investigation of Crime – Remanded

Dec 4, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. P.S. JAYAPRAKASH ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Declined

Bail – HELD order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of SCOI – the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.

Oct 8, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AMINUDDIN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Declined

High Court has not considered the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged against the respondent – High Court has also not noticed and/or considered that a non-bailable warrant was issued against accused and thereafter, he was arrested in the year 2021 – Order releasing respondent is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Oct 5, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BOHATTI DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

Bail Declined

Murder – Bail – Cancellation of – As per the settled position of law, gravity and seriousness of the offence is a relevant consideration for the purpose of grant of bail – Role attributed to accused is catching hold of the deceased and the main role of causing injuries to the deceased is assigned to the co accused – Appeal allowed.

Sep 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NITU KUMAR — Appellant Vs. GULVEER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1547…

Bail Declined Murder

Cancellation of bail – Grounds on which the said co-­accused was released on bail and the grounds on which the present respondent is released on bail are same – Once the bail in favour of co­-accused has been cancelled by this Court, the bail in the present case also requires to be cancelled – Bail cancelled.

Sep 13, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH JOSEPH JOHNSON N. MAITHKURI — Appellant Vs. SUBRAHMANYA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Bail Declined

Appeal against grant of anticipatory bail HELD It is a peremptory direction affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the direction goes to the very livelihood of the appellant. It has also civil consequences for the appellant. Such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified

Aug 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH KANCHAN KUMARI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal…

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