Supreme Court: What are parameters for setting aside bail order by appellate court?

 In the case of Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1843 of 2019) decided on 5th December, 2019, a coordinate Bench of this Court has discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate Court in setting aside an order of granting bail. The two key factors for interfering with such an order are non-application of mind on the part of the Court granting bail or the opinion of the Court in granting bail is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record.{Para 6}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2020 

Decided On: 24.01.2020

Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Author: Aniruddha Bose, J.

Citation: Citation: 2020 INSC 89, MANU/SC/0085/2020,(2020) 11 SCC 648.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The Court should not refuse a bail to accused if multiple crimes are pending against him

The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the Accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2020 

Decided On: 24.01.2020

Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Author: Aniruddha Bose, J.

Citation: Citation: 2020 INSC 89, MANU/SC/0085/2020,(2020) 11 SCC 648.

Print Page

Supreme Court: if a person is illegally or erroneously released on bail U/S 167(2) of CRPC, Session Judge can cancel his bail by passing appropriate order U/S 439(2) Cr.P.C

Proviso to Section 167 itself clarifies that every person released on bail under Section 167(2) shall be deemed to be so released under chapter XXXIII. Therefore, if a person is illegally or erroneously released on bail under Section 167(2), his bail can be cancelled by passing appropriate order under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. This Court in Puran v. Rambilas and Another   MANU/SC/0326/2001 : 2001CriLJ2566 , has also clarified that the concept of setting aside unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. {Para 9}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 620 of 2002

Decided On: 02.05.2002

Dnyanu Khot Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.B. Shah, B.P. Singh and H.K. Sema, JJ.

Citation: 2002 (45) ACC 620 (SC),( 2008 ) 17 SCC 745,MANU/SC/0737/2002.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Distinction between concept of setting aside unjustified illegal or perverse order and concept of cancelling the bail

One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material and evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It must be remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial court has to be corrected.

Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation.

Supreme Court of India

Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001

Bench: M Shah, S Variava

Citation: (2001) 6 SCC 338

Print Page