Category: Bail Declined

(IPC) – Ss 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 341, 384, 120B, 506(2) and 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Ss 25(1-b) A, 27 and 29 – (CrPC) – S 439 – Five Murders – Land Dispute – High Court Grants Bail Duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD — Appellant Vs. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…

BAIL – Even otherwise in a case like this, where the allegations are of tampering with the court order and for whatever reason the State has not filed the bail application the locus is not that much important and it is insignificant. accused to surrender forthwith as a consequence of cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court, if not surrendered.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVEEN SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R.…

Anticipatory bail – Appeal against – except to observe, that the impugned order, to say the least, is perverse; and also because no prejudice should be caused to accused and affect the trial against him – Judgment and order set aside – Investigating Officer is free to take accused into custody – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH G.R. ANANDA BABU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…

Dowry death – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail of in-laws of the deceased- Grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct the investigation – It is a well settled principle of law that the setting aside of an “unjustified, illegal or perverse order” granting bail is distinct from the cancellation of bail – Investigation transferred to CBI

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. NARESH KUMAR MANGLA — Appellant Vs. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra…

Cr P C, 1973 – Section 167(2) – Default bail – Right of – No other condition of deposit – Where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARAVANAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

(IPC) – Ss 304B, 498A and 406 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Ss  3 and 4 – Wife commits suicide due to dowry harassment, cruelty & torture by husband – H C granted bail to husband – Appeal by father of victim. Impugned order set aside husband directed to surrender – Bail bonds cancelled.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREET PAL SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee, 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.