MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Bail Application Scrutiny: Judicial Discretion Requires Cogent Reasons in Heinous Offences – Karnataka High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision today, the High Court of Karnataka, led by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty, set a new precedent in the judicial approach to bail applications, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The court overturned a bail order, emphasizing the necessity for detailed reasoning and strict adherence to legal principles in such matters.

The case, arising from a criminal petition filed under Section 439(2) of the Cr.PC, sought to cancel the bail granted to the accused in a murder case. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shetty, in his judgment, highlighted the need for rigorous examination in successive bail applications, particularly when previous applications were rejected without any significant change in circumstances.

Justice Shetty's observation, "It is trite that the courts are required to record reasons while granting bail in cases where heinous offences are involved," underscored the judicial responsibility in granting bail. This statement reflects the court's commitment to ensuring justice and due diligence in the judicial process.

The judgment also stressed the importance of adhering to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding successive bail applications. The Hon’ble Justice pointed out the violation of these principles in the current case, where the accused had previously had multiple bail applications rejected.

Date of Decision: 27 November 2023

MR MURALI V VS STATE OF KARNATAKA and Others

Latest Legal News