Category: 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.

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…

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.

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…

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.

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…

Murder of disabled person – Cancellation of Bail – – Accused is a person exercising significant political influence and that owing to the same, the informant found it difficult to get an FIR registered against him – That the accused was arrested only following a protest outside a police station demanding his arrest – Thus, the possibility of the accused threatening or otherwise influencing the witnesses, if on bail, cannot be ruled out

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR KHOKHAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cancellation of bail – Director of Prosecution in the administration of justice is crucial – He is appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure – That his is a crucial role is evident from conditions such as in Section 25A (2) of the Code, which stipulates a minimum legal experience of not less than ten years for a person to be eligible to be Directorate of Prosecution and that such an appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the C J of the High Court – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAYABEN — Appellant Vs. TEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Murder – Cancellation of Bail – While considering an application for bail Courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BRIJMANI DEVI — Appellant Vs. PAPPU KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind – not a fit case for grant bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAXMAN PRASAD PANDEY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 15A, 15A(3) and 15A(5) – Murder – Cancellation of bail – Notice issued to victim under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A are mandatory in nature – In the present case, it is evident that the right to notice and to be heard were violated -Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIRAM BHAMBHI — Appellant Vs. SATYANARAYAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Murder – Cancellation of bail – There is a specific allegation that the second respondent has actively aided the commission of the crime by furnishing information about the movements of the deceased to the killers – High Court has failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the second respondent – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  BHOOPENDRA SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.