“Supreme Court Quashes Self-Contradictory Order, Denies Interim Protection in Anticipatory Bail Case”

Share:
ultra review complaint guidelines land age property Acquisition Developers firm Bail Marriage Property Town Eyewitness child Custody burden Reasonable LPG evidence Selection Police Jurisdiction Evidence FIR eyewitness Certificate Land Judges Sex property Lands Evidence Jail Lands Motor Accident Evidence Judgment property Constitutional Child Murder employee SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 1987 bail evidence claims pay diploma vidhan insurance magistrate 498 guilty 65 notice village ews guidelines Date of Decision: October 17, 2023 MRS. KALYANI RAJAN  vs INDRAPRASTHA medical APOLLO HOSPITAL  & ORS.          admission employers investigation judicial probationary mca tax kill bail liberty Police bail divorce certificate rape proper bail sexual violence acquittal police sale workers jurisdiction

New Delhi, July 18, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delivered a verdict quashing a perplexing order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The case, titled “State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal & Ors.,” arose from an application for anticipatory bail filed by the respondents.

In a surprising turn of events, the High Court’s order was found to be self-contradictory. While the learned Single Judge denied the respondents’ application for anticipatory bail, they were granted interim protection for a duration of two months in the same order. This peculiar discrepancy prompted the State of Uttar Pradesh to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court.

The apex court, after careful consideration, held that the High Court’s decision to grant interim protection after rejecting anticipatory bail was erroneous. In their ruling, the bench stated, “It is, thus, clear that self-contradictory orders have been passed by the High Court. On the one hand, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected and, on the other hand, the interim protection is granted for a period of two months.”

Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the part of the order that provided interim protection to the respondents for two months. This ruling ensures that the respondents will not be shielded from coercive actions beyond the denial of anticipatory bail.

The case, which revolved around the interpretation of anticipatory bail provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, sets a crucial precedent on the clarity and consistency required in judicial orders. The judgment highlights the significance of maintaining uniformity in decisions, avoiding contradictions that can lead to confusion and unintended consequences.

DATE OF DECISION: July 18, 2023

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  vs MOHD. AFZAL & ORS.   

Download Judgment

Share: