Conviction Cannot Stand On Contradictory Police Testimony Without Medical Evidence: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused In 1993 Rioting Case Criminal Law Cannot Be Used to Criminalise Governance Decisions: Punjab & Haryana High Court Discharges Bhupinder Singh Hooda in AJL Plot Case Money Laundering Is A Continuing Offence; Even Persons Not Named In Predicate FIR Can Be Prosecuted: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Discharge Accused In ₹13.29 Crore PMLA Case Failure To Obtain Demarcation To Ascertain Location Of Boundary Wall Fatal To Injunction Suit, Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn: Himachal Pradesh High Court When Cost Of Acquisition Is Incapable Of Determination, Capital Gains Tax Cannot Arise: Gujarat High Court On Transfer Of Self-Generated Trademarks Tenant Cannot Turn Residential Portion of SCF into Commercial Workshop Without Permission: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | ‘Saved Permits’ Exempt From 140km Cap Until KSRTC Introduces Service: Kerala High Court Surplus Land Proceedings Cannot Be Reopened After Decades Through Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Where Two Promotional Avenues Exist, Higher Grade Must Follow the Lowest Promotional Post: Gujarat High Court Rejects Class-IV Employees’ Claim for Tradesman Pay Scale Congress MLA's Election Void For Hiding Criminal Cases: MP High Court Documents Not Foreign To Pleadings Can Be Produced During Cross-Examination: Bombay High Court Act Nowhere Mandates Certificate By Treating Doctor : Bombay High Court Revives Workman’s Compensation Claim

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