Supreme Court: What are parameters for grant of bail in the cases of dowry death?

 The impugned order has led to travesty of justice. It was expected of the High Court to consider the bail application keeping in mind:-

(i) The nature of the alleged crime;

(ii) The punishment provided by the BNS 2023 for the alleged crime; (iii) The relations between the accused and the deceased, i.e., being husband and wife;

(iv) The place where the incident occurred;

(v) The postmortem report indicating that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and most importantly, the statutory presumption of commission of offence as envisaged under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, erstwhile Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872. {Para 19}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 770/2026

Date of Order: 09.02.2026

Chetram Verma Vs. State Of U.P.

Citation: MANU/SCOR/2834/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused in a private complaint case need not apply for anticipatory bail, unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by trial court

Anticipatory bail — Maintainability of in private complaint cases - Legality of — Held, Court may reject anticipatory bail but has no jurisdiction to direct surrender of accused — Further held, accused in a private complaint case need not pray for anticipatory bail, unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by that Court along with the summons  In the Supreme Court of India

(Before J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.)

Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash 

Chabnika alias Om Prakash Chawnika 

Vs

State of Jharkhand and Another 

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16221/2025 and ABA No. 2319/2025

Decided on April 23, 2026

Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676

Print Page

What are parameters for deciding bail application U/S 302 or 307 r/w S 149 of IPC If said offence is committed by unlawful assembly?

 Bail in Unlawful Assembly Cases: When No Specific Act is Attributed to the Accused

Critical Supreme Court Principle: Mere Presence ≠ Guilt

The Supreme Court of India has recently reaffirmed a fundamental principle: mere presence at the scene of a crime or in an unlawful assembly does not automatically render a person criminally liable under Sections 302 or 307 of the IPC, even when invoking Section 149 (vicarious liability). This principle has direct and significant implications for bail considerations in unlawful assembly cases.​

The Landmark 7-Factor Test for Unlawful Assembly Membership (2025)

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether accused can be held guilty for murder if common object of the assembly is not discernible?

 In the case of Sukhbir Singh (supra) it was held:-

“14. The prosecution in the instant case could not

specifically refer to any of the objects for which

the accused are alleged to have formed the

assembly. It appears, from the circumstances of

the case, that after altercation over the splashing of

mud on his person and receiving two slaps on his

face from the complainant party, Sukhbir Singh

declared to teach the complainant party, a lesson

and went home. Immediately thereafter he along

with others came on the spot and as held by the

High Court wanted to remove the obstruction

caused in the flow of water. As the common object

of the assembly is not discernible, it can, at the

most, be held that Sukhbir Singh intended to cause

the fatal blow to the deceased and the other

accused accompanied him for the purpose of

removing the obstructions or at the most for

teaching a lesson to Lachhman and others. At no

point of time any of the accused persons

threatened or otherwise reflected their intention to

commit the murder of the deceased. Merely

because the other accused persons were

accompanying him when the fatal blows were

caused by Sukhbir Singh to the deceased, cannot

prove the existence of the common object

specifically in the absence of any evidence of the

prosecution in that behalf. The members of the

unlawful assembly can be held liable under

Section 149 IPC if it is shown that they knew

before hand that the offence actually committed

was likely to be committed in prosecution of the

common object. It is true that the common object

does not require prior concern and a common

meeting of mind before the attack. It can develop

even on spot but the sharing of such an object by

all the accused must be shown to be in existence at

any time before the actual occurrence.”

[Non- Reportable ]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1431 of 2013

DILIP SHAW @ SANATAN & ANR. Vs  THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 

Author: ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

Dated: March 02, 2020.

Print Page