Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition

“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.   

Similar News