Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

“Avoid Conflicting Decisions in Bail Applications from Same FIR” – Supreme Court to High Courts

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant move towards ensuring uniformity in judicial decisions, the Supreme Court of India, while dismissing a special leave petition as withdrawn, made crucial observations on the necessity of maintaining consistency in bail decisions across High Courts.

In the case of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15585 of 2023, the petitioner Rajpal sought to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court, presided over by Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, acceded to this request but took the opportunity to address a recurring issue concerning the handling of bail applications.

The Court noted, “We have to reiterate the concern of this Court on the lethargy in following the earlier orders in the matter of dealing with bail applications arising out of the same FIR to avoid conflicting decisions.” This observation highlights the Court’s stance on the need for consistency in judicial decision-making, especially in cases involving co-accused from the same FIR.

The judgment referenced a previous situation acknowledged by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, which observed the inconsistency in bail decisions when similar cases from the same FIR were handled by different judges. The Bench had suggested that all matters pertaining to one FIR should be listed before the same Judge to ensure uniformity in orders.

Further cementing this approach, the Supreme Court has directed the Registrar (Judicial) of its Registry to communicate this order, along with the relevant order dated 31.07.2023 from SLP (Crl.) No.7203 of 2023, to the Registrar (Judicial) of all High Courts.

Date of Decision: 12th December 2023

RAJPAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

 

Latest Legal News