Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

"Grant of Bail to a Co-Accused Should Not Be Dependent on Surrender of Another," Rules Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant order that impacts the dynamics of criminal justice and personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India clarified that "the question of grant of bail to a co-accused person cannot be made dependent upon the surrender of another accused."

The apex court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, modified the conditions for granting bail to Munshi Sah, the appellant in a case involving unnatural death. The case had charges framed under Sections 304-B/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Previously, the High Court had granted bail to Munshi Sah on the condition that it would become effective only upon the surrender of the main accused, who is the husband of the deceased and is currently absconding. The Supreme Court held this condition to be improper and said, "We do not think the imposition and subsequent adhering to the condition of surrender of the husband of the deceased would be necessary for the grant of bail to the appellant."

Munshi Sah was represented by Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Mr. Ahmer Shaikh, and Mr. Avanish Deshpande. The State of Bihar was represented by Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary, Ms. Shradha Choudhary, Mr. Anshul Narayan, and Mr. Prem Prakash.

In its judgment, the Court emphasized the importance of treating each accused as a separate entity for the purpose of bail. This ruling sets a precedent that could influence how conditional bails are granted in the future.

The judgment further elaborates, "In such circumstances, we...modify the impugned orders and direct that the appellant may be released on bail in terms of the order(s) of the High Court but the condition which requires prior surrender of husband of the deceased...should not be insisted upon."

The ruling is expected to have a substantial impact on similar cases where bail is granted conditionally based on another accused's actions.

Date of Decision: 13 October 2023

MUNSHI SAH  vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 

Latest Legal News