Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Crucial witnesses yet to be examined – bail of accused - grave risk of impeding a fair trial – SC

13 October 2025 12:45 PM

By: Admin


  

Apex Court observed in recent judgement (Mamta & other. Vs State 24th May 2022) that an important circumstance which have not been taken into consideration by the High Court is that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined.  The release of the second respondent on bail, at this stage, would run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. The apprehension of the appellants and of the prosecution that the witnesses may be tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance.

The appellants are the parents of the deceased Class VIII pupil, who was 13 years old. The prosecution contends that he was kidnapped for a ransom of one Crore rupees and his body was retrieved from a nallah one day after his abduction. The second respondent was detained on November 25, 2014, and remained in detention until March 2, 2022, excluding the time he was released on temporary bail.

The accused is facing trial in connection with FIR for alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.  Charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C, charges have been framed.  Eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined. Accused/respondent no.2 approached Delhi High Court for regular bail and same was allowed. Aggrieved parents of deceased child approached Apex Court.

Apex court held that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the role which has been attributed to the accused/respondent no.2 and the crucial witnesses which remain to be examined.  The exercise of the discretion by the High Court in the present case is improper. 

D.D:- 24 May,2022

Mamta & Anr  versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr    

  

Latest Legal News