Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

"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

  • by Admin
    28 January 2026 8:57 AM
Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:55 AM
Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    28 January 2026 6:54 AM
Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings