MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Period of Incarceration Does Not Entitle Accused to Bail If Engaged in Subsequent Serious Offenses: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the decision of the Allahabad High Court to grant bail to two accused, Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, involved in the murder of a police constable and other serious crimes, despite their extended period of pre-trial detention. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, ruled on the matter on April 19, 2024, emphasizing the gravity of the accused's actions post their initial arrest.

 

The appellants challenged the High Court's order which had granted bail based on the duration of the accused's incarceration and the bail status of co-accused. The Supreme Court scrutinized this rationale against the backdrop of subsequent criminal activities by the accused, including the murder of Police Constable Ajay Kumar during their judicial custody.

Initially, Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar (alias Chandu), and Rishi Kumar, along with others, were convicted under various sections of the IPC, including 302/149 for a murder dating back to 2011. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. Their appeal for bail was granted by the High Court considering they had already spent over ten years in jail.

Misrepresentation in High Court: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court was not fully apprised of the additional serious crimes committed by Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar. This oversight was critical in their decision to grant bail.

Distinction of Roles: Justice Vikram Nath remarked, "The roles of the co-accused in subsequent serious offenses, specifically the murder of Constable Ajay Kumar, make a compelling case against the parity in bail conditions applied by the High Court."

Danger to Society: The court highlighted that releasing the accused back into society poses significant risks given their propensity to engage in violent crimes.

The Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of bail for Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar citing their dangerous conduct post the initial incarceration. The appeal against Arvind Kumar was dismissed, and his bail was upheld due to the absence of direct involvement in the murder of the police constable.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2024

Jadunath Singh vs Arvind Kumar & Anr. Etc.

Latest Legal News