Category: 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.

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.…

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.

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…

(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.

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. )…

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.

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.…

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.

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.…

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

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.…

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

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. )…

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

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.…

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.

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

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.