Abandoning Arbitration Proceedings Bars Fresh Section 11 Application On Same Cause Of Action: Supreme Court Department Must Lead Evidence, Examine Witnesses To Prove Charges Unless Employee Clearly Admits Guilt: Supreme Court Order IX Rule 13 And Section 96 CPC Have Distinct Scopes; Minor Unrepresented In Original Suit Can Seek Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree: Supreme Court Minor Heir Cannot Be Expected To Respond To Public Notice Independently: Supreme Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Succession Certificate Supreme Court Restores Acquittal In POCSO Case, Holds DNA Evidence Not Infallible If Blood Sample Collection Is Disputed Bar Under Section 197 CrPC Applies At Stage Of Cognizance; Subsequent Notification Cannot Invalidate Valid Proceedings: Supreme Court State Cannot Apply Harsher Remission Policy Retrospectively To Deny Premature Release: Supreme Court Superficial Bail Orders In Dowry Death Cases Weaken Public Faith In Judiciary: Supreme Court Cancels Husband's Bail Non-Deposit of Balance Amount During Suit Doesn't Prove Lack Of Readiness: Bombay High Court Grants Specific Performance Of 1978 Oral Agreement Teacher Appointed In 'Pass' Graduate Category Entitled To Higher Pay Scale Upon Acquiring Master's Degree During Service: Calcutta High Court Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Under Section 144 BNSS Must Be Challenged Before Family Court First, Direct Revision Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court Occupant Cannot Be Denied Electricity Merely Because Decree-Holder Demands Disconnection Pending Eviction: Andhra Pradesh High Court Anticipatory Bail In PMLA Cannot Be Granted If Accused Obstructs Probe & Gives False Answers Even If Beneficiary Of Section 45 Proviso: Delhi High Court Tender Condition Disqualifying Bidders For Past Bridge Collapses Does Not Amount To Blacklisting: Gauhati High Court Mere Unauthorized Entry On Government Land Does Not Constitute Criminal Trespass Without Intent To Annoy: Himachal Pradesh High Court Mere Buildings Without Life-Saving Machinery Don't Fulfil Article 21 Mandate: Jharkhand HC Orders State-Wide Functional Burn Wards Within 120 Days Unestablished Claim Of Co-Heirship Does Not Mandate Reference To Civil Court For Apportionment Of NHAI Compensation: J&K High Court Accused Cannot Defer Cross-Examination By Merely Claiming Defence Strategy Will Be Disclosed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allegations Confined To Negligence, Not Criminal Intent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ex-SGPC Secretary In Missing 'Saroops' Case True Owner Cannot Unlawfully Enter Tenanted Premises Under Guise Of Ownership To Commit Offence: Kerala High Court Upholds Landlord's Conviction RTO Officials Cannot Seize Vehicles Without Specific Statutory Authority; Actions Pending Writ Proceeding Highly Improper: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Flags West Bengal Incidents, Orders Central Forces to Shield Judges on Ground Duty Two-Judge Bench Can Modify Three-Judge Bench Orders: Supreme Court Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of 'Grand Venice' Promoter, Forfeits ₹50 Crore Deposit Over Siphoning Of Funds During IBC Moratorium

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