Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

No Strong Prima Facie Case Against Conditions Of Bail Being Violated: Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Bail Decision in Chandwa Police Attack Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the Jharkhand High Court’s order granting bail to Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, linked with alleged terrorist activities and the killing of police personnel by CPI (Maoist). The apex court dismissed the appeal by the Union of India, which challenged the bail, citing insufficient grounds to reverse the High Court’s decision.

Legal Context and Brief: The challenge was rooted in the High Court’s decision dated January 30, 2023, which allowed Singh’s bail plea. The Union of India had contested this decision, fearing Singh might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, given his alleged connections with terrorist activities and other criminal cases.

Facts and Issues: The case pertains to an attack on Chandwa police by CPI (Maoist) on November 22, 2019, resulting in four police casualties. The respondent, Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, was accused of supporting the Maoist group financially and logistically. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) charged him and several others with multiple severe offenses, leading to his initial bail rejection by a Special Judge.

Court’s Assessment: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was based on the lack of direct evidence linking Singh to the crime scene and the absence of any violation of previously set bail conditions. The Court referenced past precedents emphasizing the necessity of a judicial balance between the presumption of innocence and the nature of the accusations.

Key Observations: Evidence and Previous Acquittals: The apex court highlighted that previous acquittals and bail grants in other cases significantly weakened the Union of India’s argument.

Judicial Reasoning: The Court underscored that detaining individuals on a presumption of guilt without a strong evidential basis is inappropriate, stressing that decisions at the bail stage should not influence the trial’s outcome.

Future Compliance: The Court left room for the prosecution to seek bail cancellation should there be future violations of the bail conditions, asserting that such actions should be assessed independently.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed due to a lack of substantive grounds to reverse the High Court’s order, emphasizing the absence of bail condition violations as a significant factor.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2024.

UNION OF INDIA vs. MRITYUNJAY KUMAR SINGH @ MRITYUNJAY @ SONU SINGH,

Latest Legal News