Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Bail Declined

Bail Declined

Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case – HELD (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims’ right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel the bail,

Apr 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAGJEET SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima…

Bail Declined

HELD When bail has been granted to an accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the CrPC – OR the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a prima­ facie case against the accused.

Mar 14, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLA DEVI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Bail Declined

(CrPC) – S 439 – (IPC) – Ss 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B – Cancellation of bail – Misappropriate/siphoned off the money entrusted to them as a loan to the tune of Rs.25 crores – While releasing accused on bail, the High Court has not at all considered the relevant factors including the nature and gravity of accusation; the modus operandi and the manner in which the offences have been committed through shell companies . Bail cancelled.

Feb 5, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRUM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Bail Declined

Murder – Cancellation of bail – Accused is a history sheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the informant – High Court releasing the accused on bail is absolutely unsustainable and the same cannot stand – Appeal allowed.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Declined

If bail is granted in a casual manner, the prosecution or the informant has a right to assail the order before a higher forum. Propensity of accused tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses is an important factor to be borne in mind in such cases – High Court was not right in allowing the applications for bail filed by the accused – Appeal allowed.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAIBUNISHA — Appellant Vs. MEHARBAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 76 of…

Bail Declined

For the monetary benefits accused-husband hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused to kill his wife and tried to make out an accidental case – – looking to the seriousness of the offence and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence committed by accused-husband, the High Court ought not to have released accused-husband on bail – Appeal allowed.

Jan 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ISHWARJI NAGAJI MALI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw