Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

High Court failed to appreciate all facts when allowed bail -SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex court (27th Jan 2022) observed that when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual accused is not significant and/or relevant.

Facts - Appellant filed a FIR against respondents No.2 and others for the murder of his son U/s Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 307 ,34 IPC - accused named in the FIR and that they allegedly attacked the deceased with a sword, hockey, stick, and rod, killing the appellant's son. Accused requested bail before Sessions Court but same was rejected the bail applications.  Respondents No.2 approached the High Court, and his bail was allowed. Aggrieved by the bail order appellant approached Supreme Court.

Apex court observed that High court not appreciated all the facts and released respondents No.2 on bail mechanically and on applying the wrong facts  and held  the relevant considerations   while granting the bail are (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s), it appears that the High Court has not at all adverted to the relevant facts and/or considerations while granting bail.

Apex court held that bail order of High Court is unsustainable, and appeal allowed.

D.D:- 25 January 2022

Manno Lal Jaiswal  Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Latest Legal News