Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras High Court

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