Bail Granted Archives - Page 3 of 14 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

February 7, 2026 4:03 am

Supreme Court Grants Bail To 2 Kerala Advocates Accused Of Raping Client

May 26, 2024 sclaw

“Having considered the circumstances here and more particularly the fact that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to both accused i.e.,…

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,…

Bail Granted

Bail applications should have been placed before the same Single Judge who had granted bail, and not before another Single Judge – The Supreme Court further noted that the trial had commenced and the appellants had not misused their liberty or violated the bail conditions.

Mar 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HIMANSHU SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s)…..…

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…

Bail Granted

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 4 – Punishment for money laundering – Bail – As a result, the respondents argue that this money is the proceeds of a criminal activity – Appellant being accused of possessing Rs. 30 lakh in his bank account, it’s important to note that this money was deposited on January 24, 2022, which precedes the alleged illegal activity

Sep 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BACHHU YADAV — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PMLA) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Bail Granted

Not finding of material to satisfy that release of the Appellant on bail shall be a liberty to the Appellant to influence the witnesses or there is any danger of justice being thwarted by such order being passed – In agreement with the ultimate view of the High Court – Order granting bail is upheld – Appeal dismissed.

Aug 28, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXX — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Category: Bail Granted

You missed