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 Sets Aside Bail, Cites 'Error of Law' and 'Inadequate Reasoning'

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgement, setting aside the bail granted to the respondents-accused in Criminal Appeal No. 2078 of 2023. The two-judge bench comprising Hon'ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra ruled that the High Court had erred in granting bail to the accused without adequate reasoning, which amounted to a "vice of non-application of mind."

The judgement, delivered on 24th July 2023, emphasized the importance of considering material aspects of the case while granting bail. The apex court highlighted that though detailed discussions on the merits of the case were not required during bail applications, the court must record adequate reasons to validate the grant of bail.

The bench stated, "While not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the prosecution has brought on record adequate material that would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the accused." The Court also underscored the need for balancing an individual's liberty with the seriousness of the allegations against them.

The impugned orders passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur on 14th February 2022 and 02nd February 2023 were criticized for being cryptic and casual in granting bail to the respondents-accused. The Court pointed out that the High Court did not consider vital aspects of the case, including the specific roles attributed to each accused in the alleged crime.

"The High Court referred only to the testimony of one hostile witness, and on that basis, exercised its discretion to grant bail in an erroneous manner," the judgement quoted. Consequently, the Supreme Court found the bail orders lacking adequate reasoning and set them aside.

In conclusion, the Court canceled the bail bonds of the respondents-accused and directed them to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within two weeks from the date of the judgement.

This ruling serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise their discretion judiciously while granting bail and to ensure that bail orders are backed by adequate reasoning based on material aspects of the case.

Date of Decision: 24th July 2023

ROHIT BISHNOI vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.   

Latest Legal News