Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Bail Declined

Bail Declined

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Cancellation of – Murder – Order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations – Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court – Impugned judgments of High Court granting anticipatory bail to second respondents in these appeals – are set aside – Appeals allowed.

Oct 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V.…

Bail Declined

The directions issued had the potential for breaching the constitutional and legal rights of individuals who could be or are arraigned in criminal action and also put fetters on power of investigating agencies. Though the impact of the orders under appeal no more survives, we decided to express our opinion on the subject-controversy. With these observations, we allow the appeals. As both the applications for bail have been rejected, there is no necessity of formally setting aside the orders under appeal.

Oct 3, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

Bail Declined

(IPC) – S 302 and 120B – (CrPC) – Section 439 – Cancellation of Bail – Conspiracy – Murder – Tampering with evidence – Deceased was employed with the Intelligence Bureau – Mobile phone of the wife of the deceased was seized and it showed that she had been in constant touch with the First respondent-accused after the death of her husband – First respondent himself being an employee of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with and of the witnesses being suborned cannot be discounted – surmise that the police had “developed a case” that Ketamine was administered, after four months of the incident – Conclusion that the High Court was in error in allowing the application for bail – Appeal allowed.

Oct 3, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI MAHADEV MEENA — Appellant Vs. PRAVEEN RATHORE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Bail Declined

Murder – Cancellation of bail – Giving threats to the complainant side and the other witnesses and the offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC can be said to be a very serious offence – Therefore, the aforesaid conduct ought not to have been taken by the High Court very lightly – High Court has committed a grave error in releasing the accused on bail pending appeals against the judgment and order of conviction for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.

Sep 16, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Bail Declined

Murder – Bail – Cancellation of – Habitual offender – Hatching conspiracy from the jail – There is a high possibility of threat and danger to the life and safety of complainant and his family members, as is evident from the criminal history of accused, detailed – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.

Aug 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARJIT SINGH — Appellant Vs. INDERPREET SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Bail Declined

Murder – Cancellation of Bail – High court grants bail in second bail application without discussion or analysis of circumstances – Observations made by the High Court “considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application” does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order

Aug 8, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUMER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah, JJ.…

Bail Declined

India cannot have two parallel legal systems, “one for the rich and the resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and the other for the small men without resources and capabilities to obtain justice or fight injustice.” The existence of a dual legal system will only chip away the legitimacy of the law. – Order of High Court shall stand set aside – Bail cancelled

Aug 8, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOMESH CHAURASIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Bail Declined

Court at an earlier instance had taken note of all aspects and had arrived at the conclusion that there is prima facie material against the accused, the mere examination of the wife herein cannot be considered as a change in circumstance for the High Court to consider the fourth bail application of the accused and enlarge him on bail – Opinion that the order passed by High Court impugned herein is not sustainable – Bail cancelled

Jul 18, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAMTA NAIR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Bail Declined

It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the incident in question -the courts to recognise the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused is released on bail.

Apr 25, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUDHA SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, C.J.I, A.S. Bopanna and V.…

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