TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

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