Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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