Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

“Supreme Court Quashes Self-Contradictory Order, Denies Interim Protection in Anticipatory Bail Case”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, July 18, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delivered a verdict quashing a perplexing order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The case, titled “State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal & Ors.,” arose from an application for anticipatory bail filed by the respondents.

In a surprising turn of events, the High Court’s order was found to be self-contradictory. While the learned Single Judge denied the respondents’ application for anticipatory bail, they were granted interim protection for a duration of two months in the same order. This peculiar discrepancy prompted the State of Uttar Pradesh to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court.

The apex court, after careful consideration, held that the High Court’s decision to grant interim protection after rejecting anticipatory bail was erroneous. In their ruling, the bench stated, “It is, thus, clear that self-contradictory orders have been passed by the High Court. On the one hand, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected and, on the other hand, the interim protection is granted for a period of two months.”

Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the part of the order that provided interim protection to the respondents for two months. This ruling ensures that the respondents will not be shielded from coercive actions beyond the denial of anticipatory bail.

The case, which revolved around the interpretation of anticipatory bail provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, sets a crucial precedent on the clarity and consistency required in judicial orders. The judgment highlights the significance of maintaining uniformity in decisions, avoiding contradictions that can lead to confusion and unintended consequences.

DATE OF DECISION: July 18, 2023

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  vs MOHD. AFZAL & ORS.   

Latest Legal News