Supreme Court: Whether accused can file bail application before Session court after withdrawing it from High court?

Having carefully scrutinized the material available on record,

we are of the considered view that the High Court has passed the

impugned order, without application of its mind, by revoking the

bail granted to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge-3,

Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1847 of 2017, on the

ground that the application was not maintainable before the Trial Court as the appellant previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application. It may be mentioned in this connection that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or law laid down by this Court that once an accused has withdrawn his bail application before the High Court, he cannot file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court and that his subsequent bail application would lie before the High Court only. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1221/2019

SHARAD Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 

Dated: 8TH AUGUST, 2019.

Print Page

Bombay HC: The court should release accused if he is not produced before court within 24 hours and there is violation of mandate U/s.35(5) of BNSS

 Therefore, even by giving concession to the police as per their averment in paragraph-9 they left Akola at 10:00a.m. on 27.05.2025, from that point onwards, definitely, the Petitioner was in their custody. Therefore, it can be said that he was arrested from that point onwards. In that view of the matter, it was necessary for the police officers to have produced the Petitioner before 10:00a.m. on 28.05.2025 before the nearest Magistrate. That was not done. He was brought to Yerwada police station and was produced before the learned Magistrate, Pune on 28.05.2025 at 4:20p.m.; which was clearly beyond 24 hours. Thus, the period of 24 hours is exceeded. The Petitioner was not even produced before the nearest Magistrate as is mandated under the Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. This is the first gross violation committed by the investigating agency.

In this case, no such written reasons are brought to our notice. Therefore, the Police officer has not recorded any reasons for the Petitioner’s arrest, though, he had appeared before the police station and had given his statement. Thus, we find there is violation of mandate U/s.35(5) of BNSS, as well.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4283 OF 2025

Vicky @ Vikky Vilas Kamble Vs The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &

SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 25 SEPTEMBER 2025

JUDGMENT : (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:41340-DB

Print Page

District Judge interview Important Q & A 2026

1) DJ Viva Q & A 2026{Part 1}

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tWl33zaSxvxgQo0ncO8JIjMMK45erabP/view?usp=sharing

2) DJ Viva Q & A 2026{Part 2}

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JMdHWpwy0tZmNC9wf79eR02icwcNmRAo/view?usp=sharing

3) DJ Viva Q & A 2026{Part 3}

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L27z3PYanIfWNi0pNBeJWSj0GyaFBiZR/view?usp=sharing

4) DJ Viva Q & A 2026{Part 4}

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jy_bTr_OP251DzhulXAxtzZsXgjCeJur/view?usp=sharing

5) DJ Viva Q & A 2026{Part 5}

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o9P7DgIWsonmgVgQin32LOFRBjDeFVjf/view?usp=sharing

6) DJ Viva Q & A 2026{Part 6}

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n5y2umgYkK46Uu65cy_6-88YPnWWvoIs/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Financially Independent Wife Earning More Than Husband Can't Claim Maintenance Merely Because She Is A Woman

 Only because a woman more particularly a wife files

a petition invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act or

the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or the

provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where

the right to claim maintenance is recognized, the Courts cannot

straight away pass an order awarding some amount towards

maintenance payable by the husband. When the wife is

financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is

more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are

found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts

should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on

the ground that women are required to be maintained by men

or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should

be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no

financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards

of her husband, then only Courts are required to award

maintenance either interim or final. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WP No. 2327 of 2026

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

SRI RAVI S @ JEEVAN S., Vs SMT. SAHANA DEVI A.,

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:30140

Print Page