Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme 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