SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Without explaining why bail granted suffer from non-application of mind -SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court in latest reportable judgement (Sunil vs State of Bihar and Ors.) observed that the High Court has erred in not considering the material relevant to the determination of whether the accused was to be enlarged on bail.

Facts - Appellant informant younger brother of the deceased - on date of occurrence accused Ramawatar Bhagat respondent no.2 and other accused armed with lethal weapons came to the Bamboo Clumps of the informant and cutting the bamboos, brother of appellant forbade them. On that accused Ramawatar Bhagat ordered to kill - deceased tried to flee away but chased and surrounded - co-accused Manish Kumar fired upon him - deceased injured and fell  down- informant went to save him - co-accused namely Rambabu Kumar fired twice upon the informant and got injured to some extent, during treatment brother of appellant died. All accused arrested. Respondent no.2 filed regular bail but same was dismissed by the session court. Respondent No.2 approached High court and his Bail was allowed – aggrieved appellant (informant) approached Supreme Court.

Supreme court held that while granting bail, the relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. 

Also held that there is a need to explain why bail was granted in such orders, especially if the accused is accused of committing a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind.

Supreme Court further held that respondent No.2 is a history sheeter and involved in the double murder of father and brother of the informant, trial at the crucial stage of recording evidence and there are also allegations of pressurizing the informant and the witnesses - bail unsustainable.

D.D- JANUARY 25, 2022.

Sunil Kumar Versus The State of Bihar and Anr.   

Latest Legal News