UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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