Supreme Court of India Judgements

46550 Judgements hosted as on 16/07/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Bail Granted

Bail Granted

BAIL GRANTED NDPS – PROLONGED INCARCERATION – It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

Jun 9, 2024 sclaw

It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the…

Bail Granted

A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 19 – Arvind Kejriwal, the appellant, is challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement on 21.03.2024, which was upheld by the trial court and the High Court of Delhi – The case involves legal pleas concerning the scope and violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – The Court is considering granting interim bail to Kejriwal due to the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha General Elections and the importance of his participation as a political leader – The Court is taking a holistic view given the elections and Kejriwal’s role as Chief Minister and a national party leader, despite the serious accusations against him – The Court refers to case law on the power to grant interim bail and emphasizes the peculiarities of the case and the surrounding circumstances – The Court grants interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal until 1st of June 2024, with specific conditions, and states that this should not be seen as an opinion on the merits of the case – Kejriwal is to surrender on 2nd of June 2024 on the following conditions (a) he shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent; (b) he shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat; (c) he shall be bound by the statement made on his behalf that he shall not sign official files unless it is required and necessary for obtaining clearance/ approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; (d) he will not make any comment with regard to his role in the present case; and (e) he will not interact with any of the witnesses and/or have access to any official files connected with the case. B. Bail – The power to grant interim bail is an inherent power of the court, which can be exercised under compelling circumstances and grounds, even when regular bail would not be justified. This power is commonly exercised in a number of cases, including cases involving politicians. C. Bail – The court must consider the peculiarities of each case and the surrounding circumstances when granting interim bail. In this case, the court considered the fact that the appellant, Arvind Kejriwal, was the Chief Minister of Delhi and a leader of one of the national parties, had no criminal antecedents, and was not a threat to society. D. Bail – The court rejected the argument that granting interim bail to politicians sets a precedent for special treatment – The court noted that the decision was based on the peculiarities of the case and the fact that the 18th Lok Sabha General Elections were being held. E. Bail – The court held that imposing conditions on interim bail, such as prohibiting the accused from participating in political activities, directly or indirectly, would breach their fundamental rights – The court deleted the condition imposed by the High Court in a similar case, stating that the appellant shall not be involved in any political activities, directly or indirectly. F. Bail – The court clarified that the grant of interim bail does not express an opinion on the merits of the case or the criminal appeal which is pending consideration before the court.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 400 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARVIND KEJRIWAL — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Granted

“Sanjay Singh Granted Bail on Conditions: Top Court Rejects Precedent Setting in Money Laundering Case” – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed that Sanjay Singh be released on bail, with the terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court – The Order clarifies that this concession should not be treated as a precedent – Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SANJAY SINGH — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. ) Criminal…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

The Court considered the principles of anticipatory bail and the role of the accused, noting that the prime accused had been granted bail and the appellant’s role was secondary – The Court analyzed the factors to be considered for anticipatory bail, as laid out in previous judgments, focusing on the nature of the accusation and the role of the accused – The Supreme Court confirmed the order granting anticipatory bail to Petitioner, setting aside the order of cancellation, with the condition of cooperation in the investigation and trial.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SABITA PAUL AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol,…

Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory Bail – Breach of contract – Civil Dispute – Mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged – Anticipatory bail granted.

Jan 21, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAY SHRI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Bail Granted

Criminal Law – Transit anticipatory bail – In situations where an accused is a resident in a state different from where the FIR is registered, full-fledged anticipatory bail cannot be sought in the resident state – However, the individual is entitled to apply for transit anticipatory bail from the Court of Session or High Court in their resident state

Nov 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRIYA INDORIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Bail Granted

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 389(1) – Appeal for suspension of sentence is pending – Bail Canceled by High Court – Appeal – Under no circumstances, the bail granted to an accused under sub-section 1 of Section 389 can be cancelled without giving a reasonable opportunity to the accused of being heard – Under sub-section 1 of Section 389, while suspending the sentence of the appellant-accused who is in Jail, the Appellate Court has to enlarge the accused on bail till the final disposal of the appeal – Second proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 389 permits the Public Prosecutor to file an application for cancellation of the bail granted under sub-section 1 –

Nov 7, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURUSHOTHAMAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3341…

You missed

Tenders & Contracts

E-auction — Typographical error — e-auction for a manganese and iron ore block submitted a bid of 140.10% instead of its intended bid of 104.10% due to a typographical error — The court allowed the company’s appeal and ordered a fresh e-auction for the block — The company was also ordered to pay Rs 3 crore ($400,000) to the state as compensation for the delay caused by its error.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
Corporate

Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 — Paragraph 13 — Recovery of overcharged amount of drugs — Demand made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to recover an overcharged amount for a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation called Roscilox — The Court found that the appellant’s admission of purchasing the drug directly from the manufacturer made it liable under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) — The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that it was only a ‘dealer’ and not a ‘distributor’ under the DPCO, as the definitions of these terms under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive — The Court further noted that the objective of the DPCO is to control the prices of medicinal drug formulations and ensure they are made available to the common man, and thus, the provision should not be subjected to a restricted or hidebound interpretation — Appeal Dismissed.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
Service

Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 — Rules 5 and 11 — The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a judgment by the Patna High Court, which allowed a candidate to be considered for appointment as a City Manager in Bihar — The candidate had scored to meet up the minimum qualifying marks of 32% — The court found that the minimum qualifying marks were only for the written test and not for the overall selection process — The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on an executive order issued in 2007, stating that it was not applicable to the rules issued in 2014 — The court concluded that the candidate was eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment as she had met the minimum qualifying marks in the written test.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw