Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

"One Cannot Apply For One Bail Order to All Subsequent Cases": Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Applications in Multi-Jurisdictional Offences

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the bail applications filed by accused nos. 5 and 6 in a case involving multiple offences and jurisdictions. The bench, comprising Justices A. S. Bopanna and M. M. Sundresh, emphasized that "one cannot apply one bail order to all other subsequent cases," directing the applicants to approach jurisdictional courts for bail.

The accused had sought bail for offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The applications were filed in connection with FIR No. RC-BD1/2014E004-CBI/BS&FC/New Delhi and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 326 of 2023. The applicants, being Directors at the relevant time, were implicated in a case where the amount siphoned off exceeds 40 thousand crores.

The applicants argued that they have been in jail for over seven years and acted in good faith. They also claimed that there was no evidence of tampering with witnesses or non-cooperation with the investigating agency. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General argued against bail, citing the large number of investors duped and the international scope of the financial trail.

The Court noted that the applicants had sought an "omnibus relief" by filing for bail in all pending cases across different jurisdictions and investigating agencies. The bench stated, "We are not willing to go into the merits of the submissions made as we are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the applicants will have to approach the jurisdictional courts, instead of seeking an omnibus relief before this Court."

The Court dismissed the bail applications and the writ petition but extended the interim bail granted to the applicants for a period of three months. This extension aims to facilitate the applicants in seeking bail from the jurisdictional courts. The Court made it clear that future applications for bail should be disposed of on their own merits, "without being influenced by this order."

Date of Decision: September 5, 2023

PACL vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION      

Latest Legal News