Supreme Court: Whether the court considering bail application for heinous offence should give findings on merits of the case?

 Whether Courts are permitted to undertake detailed examination of evidence at the bail stage -- Held, at the bail stage, Courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case -- Court cannot conduct a mini trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial -- While detailed evaluation is not required, some reasoning must support the grant of bail, especially when the offence is grave -- However, even in such cases, the reasoning must be confined to prima facie satisfaction, not merit based findings

Whether Courts while considering bail applications can record elaborate details that give impression of pre determining trial outcome -- Held, there cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail

Per R. Mahadevan, J.

In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, the Court cautioned that there cannot be elaborate details recorded to give an impression that the case is one that would result in a conviction or, by contrast, in an acquittal while passing an order on an application for grant of bail.

At the bail stage, courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, the Court reiterated that while detailed evaluation is not required, some reasoning must support the grant of bail, especially when the offence is grave. However, even in such cases, the reasoning must be confined to prima facie satisfaction, not merit-based findings. By the impugned order, the High Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused by delving into the merits of the case and recording findings that fall within the exclusive domain of the trial Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025 

Decided On: 14.08.2025

State of Karnataka Vs. Darshan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: R. Mahadevan, J.

Citation: 2025 KHC 6693: 2025 INSC 979, MANU/SC/1098/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

 It has also been settled vide State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Chokhani and Ors.   MANU/SC/0039/2009 : AIR 2009 SC 1927, that the merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. {Para 22}

26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018

Decided On: 08.04.2024

Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Author: Pankaj Mithal, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0285/2024,2024:INSC:286.

Print Page

Whether the court can look into the merits of the case while deciding the application for condonation of delay in civil appeal?

This appeal by the first defendant in a suit for partition is filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. She says that she was suffering from back pain and was, therefore, prevented by sufficient cause from filing this appeal within the time prescribed. We would have been inclined to issue notice on that ground for condonation of delay. But we thought it appropriate to look into the merits of the appeal as well since nothing forbids a look into the merits in terms of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure even while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in connection with a first appeal under Section 96 CPC. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

R.F.A. No. 268 of 2011

Decided On: 21.06.2011

Aliyamma Isow  Vs.  P.J. Joseph and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.B. Radhakrishnan and S.S. Satheesachandran, JJ.

Print Page

Whether court should consider merits of case while deciding application for condonation of delay/

Although, while dealing with the delay condonation matter, normally the court is not supposed to address the merit of the case, if the circumstances so warrant the merit of the case cannot be brushed aside and it is not impermissible in such cases to look into the merit of the matter. Viewed with this angle when I perused the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in RCS No. 98/1978, it is apparently revealed that there is substance in the objection raised by the applicants, i.e. original defendants that the trial court passed the impugned decree without following due process of law and without giving any proper opportunity of hearing to the defendants therein. It is revealed that on the day the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded in the said suit, the counsel for defendants passed 'no instructions' pursis and without following further process in such situation, the trial court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs therein on the same day. As has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants, even the first appellate court did not consider that the defendants were not given any opportunity of adducing their evidence and the decree was passed on the day the plaintiff closed his evidence. The objection so raised by the applicants, in my opinion, deserves consideration. At this juncture though I may not be entering into the merits of the case, prima facie, I am of the opinion that the objections in that regard by the applicants, i.e. original defendants, deserve consideration. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Civil Application No. 14168 of 2016 and Civil Application No. 14771 of 2016 in Second Appeal No. 275 of 1988

Decided On: 18.06.2018

Asaram Shivaji Patole Vs Brijmohan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.R. Bora, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 122

Print Page

Whether appellate court can consider merits of appeal while deciding application for condonation of deay?

 Since the review petition is held not maintainable, there was no dispute that the Appellant had a right to file first appeal. As held in State of Jharkhand Vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani, MANU/SC/0039/2009 : AIR 2009 SC 1927, in the application for condonation of delay, the first appellate court could not have gone into merits of the appeal and the delay condonation application could not have been rejected on the assumption that first appeal itself was not maintainable. At this stage, the Appellant had no opportunity to argue about the maintainability of the first appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal (St.) No. 7650 of 2018 in Civil Application No. 272 of 2018

Decided On: 03.10.2018

Pattherao Narsu Patil Vs. Gangubai A. Lad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Dhavale, J.

Print Page

When court should not refer dispute to arbitration if defendant takes all objections on merits of case?

Having thus answered the question in law, let us now see if the affidavit of the Defendant in reply to the summons for judgment amounts to such 'first statement'. The affidavit in reply takes all objections on merits of the case, and does not object to the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground of existence of the arbitration agreement. It is thus a 'first statement' on the substance of the dispute within the meaning of Section 8 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Applicant-Defendant submits that the Defendant has averred that the Court has no jurisdiction. That is immaterial. What the affidavit does not indicate is the Defendant's objection to the Court exercising its jurisdiction in the matter in view of the arbitration agreement. The Defendant does not make it clear that he "does not want the Civil Court to adjudicate upon his rights or liabilities, but he wants the domestic forum to decide that." Here, the Defendant has made it amply clear that he intends to defend the matter in this Court; he indicates his defences, may be including a defence of jurisdiction; and based on these defences, seeks leave of the Court to defend the suit. That is clearly making a 'first statement' on the substance of the dispute. The stage for making an application under Section 8 is clearly crossed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Summons for Judgment No. 51 of 2017 in Commercial Suit No. 243 of 2017 and Notice of Motion No. 126 of 2018 in Commercial Suit No. 243 of 2017

Decided On: 12.03.2018

Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd. Vs. Haier Telecom (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Gupte, J.

Citation: 2018(3) MHLJ 60

Print Page

Whether decree can be reversed on ground that appellate court has failed to frame points?

 This Court in the case of Vatsalabai wd/o

Vishwanath Nakhate & Others Vs. Madhaorao Laxmanrao

Thakare & Another, 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 980 has held that failure

of the first Appellate Court to formulate the questions, as

required under Order XLI, Rule 31 of CPC, would in deed

constitute a substantial question of law. However, when the

appeal is heard on merits and the High Court is required to

examine the question of reversal of the decree, on any such

grounds, the Court has to examine as to whether, the failure of

the first Appellate Court to formulate the question, as required

under Order XLI, Rule 31 of CPC, has resulted into miscarriage

of justice. This Court has further found that in a situation of the

present nature, the provisions of Section 99 of CPC cannot be

lost sight of. Section 99 of CPC inter alia provides that no decree

shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be

remanded in appeal on account of any error, not affecting the

merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. Now the

question whether the failure to frame such points or proper

points, has resulted into any miscarriage of justice or has

affected the merits of the case, would depend upon facts and

circumstances of each case. In the present case, I do not find

that there is any miscarriage of justice, which has resulted,

affecting the merits of the case, within the meaning of Section 99

of CPC.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

SECOND APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2017

Shablo Govind Gaude  Vs  Kashinath Govind Gaude 

Coram : C.V. BHADANG, J.

Date : 14 th JUNE 2018

Print Page