Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's 'Casual' Grant of Default Bail in Terrorism Case: Emphasizes Gravity of National Security

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today overturned the Delhi High Court's decision to grant default bail to an accused in a terrorism-related case. The apex court, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, criticized the High Court's approach as "casual" in the context of a case involving serious allegations of terrorism and national security.

The case, involving the State of NCT of Delhi vs. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @ Lovely, centered around the High Court's application of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, granting default bail to the respondent. The Supreme Court, in its judgement, highlighted the critical nature of the offences, stating, "The matter should not have been taken so lightly," given the accused's alleged involvement in activities with "not only Pan India impact but also impact on other enemy States."

The Supreme Court's decision underscores the distinct provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in extending the investigation period, which the High Court had overlooked. The apex court pointed out that the High Court had erred in applying the provisions of the TADA Act, which were not relevant to this case under the UAPA.

Justice Nath, in the judgement, emphasized the importance of specific reasons, such as pending sanctions and forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports, for extending the investigation period beyond 90 days under the UAPA. He remarked, "Major investigation of the case had been completed... However, for want of remaining sanctions and FSL report, some more time was required for completing the investigation."

Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directing that the respondent be taken into custody forthwith, if not already. This judgement is seen as a reinforcement of the judiciary's stance on the seriousness of cases involving terrorism and the necessity for meticulous judicial scrutiny in such sensitive matters.

Date of Decision: 03 January  2024

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VS RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET  @LOVELY

 

Latest Legal News