Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

Supreme Court Addresses Serious Administrative Irregularities in Patna High Court; Grants Time for Regular Bail Application

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, September 2, 2023 – In a recent judgment dated September 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of India dealt with multiple issues, including a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) and a grave administrative error originating from the High Court of Patna.

The bench, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, condoned the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and allowed the petition to proceed without a certified/plain copy of the impugned order. The Court granted the petitioner, Manish Kumar, four weeks to surrender and apply for regular bail, stating that the application would be considered “in accordance with law.”

One of the most significant aspects of this judgment was the Court’s attention to a “serious irregularity” in the administrative process of the High Court of Patna. The impugned order, dated April 20, 2023, had not been made available to the aggrieved party, violating procedural norms. The Court noted that a screenshot from the High Court’s website, submitted by the petitioner, indicated that the status of the case was “disposed of,” yet the copy of the order was unavailable.

In light of this, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court to investigate the matter and take necessary corrective actions. This directive intends to address and rectify the concerning lack of transparency and administrative efficiency in the High Court’s procedures.

All pending applications related to the case have been disposed of in accordance with the Court’s directives.

The judgment did not specify any referred cases, sections, acts, or rules beyond the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

This case underlines the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring procedural justice and administrative efficiency in India’s judicial system.

D.D-01-09-2023

MANISH KUMAR vs THE STATE OF BIHAR           

Latest Legal News