District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

"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