Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

Supreme Court: Bail in Murder Cases Requires Careful Consideration, Not Routine Grant

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 2 May 2023, The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgement OMPRAKASH SAHNI Vs JAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC., has emphasized that the grant of bail under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in cases involving serious offences like murder should only be done in exceptional cases. The Court further stated that the power to grant bail under this provision should not be used as a matter of routine and should be exercised carefully and judiciously after considering all relevant factors.

The judgement was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and J.B. Pardiwala, and pertained to a case involving the suspension of sentence and grant of bail to two convicts who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.

The Court relied on previous judgements to lay down the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 389 of the CrPC in cases involving serious offences like murder. It held that the court must objectively assess the matter and record reasons for suspending the execution of the sentence and granting bail. The court should consider factors like the nature of the accusation, the manner in which the crime was committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after conviction for committing the serious offence of murder.

The Court further stated that while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, the Appellate Court should not re-appreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such an approach would not be correct.

The Court also observed that any observations touching the merits of the case were purely for the purpose of deciding the present appeals and shall not be construed as an expression of the final opinion in the pending criminal appeals before the High Court.

The impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside, and the convicts were ordered to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of three days from the date of the judgement.

OMPRAKASH SAHNI Vs JAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC.

Latest Legal News