SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

IF Bail Was Given Without Assigning Any Reason Bail Order Not Sustainable: Allahabad HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Recently, the Allahabad High Court ruled that if bail is granted to a similarly situated defendant for no apparent reason, then bail should not be granted based solely on the principle of equality.

The Bench of Justice Sameer Jain made these remarks in a murder case involving Manish's bail application. Manish and his parents are accused of dousing a woman in kerosene and then setting her on fire.

According to the victim's dying declaration, the accused and his family dragged the victim into their home on the day of the incident and then set her on fire.

On the other hand, the defence attorney for the defendant argued that the allegations stated in the FIR and the dying declaration are false, and that during the investigation it was determined that the allegations against the defendant and his family are false, and a final report was submitted.

In addition, it was asserted that under the SSP's direction, additional investigations were conducted and a charge sheet was filed against the accused.

In addition, it was argued that the dying declaration as a tutored one and the fact that the other co-accused have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench are grounds for granting bail in this case.

After hearing the arguments, the court noted that there are specific allegations against the accused in the dying declaration, and it was also noted that the co-accused (one Mintu @ Amit) was granted bail by the coordinate Bench of the Court solely on the basis of the arguments advanced by his counsel, and the same was true for the other accused as well.

In this case, the court ruled that parity cannot be the sole criterion for granting bail and determining whether bail should be granted to other co-defendants.

The court also noted that the deceased made specific allegations against the applicant and the other defendants.

Accordingly, the court denied bail to the defendant and opined that in this instance, bail cannot be granted on the basis of equality.

D.D: 22 JUNE 2022

Manish Versus State of U.P.

Latest Legal News