Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana 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.

Similar News