Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

"Supreme Court Dismisses Special Leave Petitions, Upholds High Court's Decision to Grant Bail: 'The Interest of Justice Must Be Preserved'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by both the victim and the State/Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The petitions challenged the Calcutta High Court's decision to grant bail to multiple accused in a criminal case involving serious offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Justice VIKRAM NATH and Justice AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH presided over the case and delivered the judgment. The Court stated, "The interest of justice must be preserved," thereby upholding the High Court's decision but imposing additional conditions on the accused.

The Calcutta High Court had granted bail to the accused for offences under Sections 376(D), 228A, 506, and 120B of the IPC. The High Court's decision was primarily based on the ground of parity as bail had been granted to the main accused, Jitendra Narain.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's ultimate decision to grant bail but for entirely different reasons. "We do not find reason to interfere with the Impugned Judgments," the Court observed. However, it imposed additional conditions on the accused, including expeditious proceedings by the Trial Court and full cooperation from the accused during the trial.

The Court emphasized the importance of the victim's safety, stating, "The onus of ensuring their safety is on the Union Territory Administration." The Director-General of Police was directed to examine the victim's subsequent complaints and take appropriate action within ten days.

The Court referred to previous judgments outlining the factors to be considered while granting or refusing bail. These include the nature of the accusation, severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused absconding.

The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of. The Court's decision serves as a significant precedent in cases involving the grant of bail for serious offences.

Date of Decision: August 24, 2023

XXX  vs UNION TERRITORY OF ANDAMAN  & NICOBAR ISLANDS & ANR. 

Latest Legal News