evidence tampering - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Delay or Criminal Antecedents Alone Cannot Cancel Bail

13Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Delay or Criminal Antecedents Alone Cannot Cancel Bail

The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between bail cancellation and revocation, emphasizing that revocation is permissible if the initial bail order was perverse or illegal. The Court reiterated that while ensuring a fair trial is paramount, the principle of "bail, not jail" prevails, and stringent conditions can adequately mitigate risks of witness tampering or evidence influence. Facts Of The Case: A First Information Report was registered on 19th December 2021 against unknown persons for offences including murder, following the death of a victim who was allegedly followed and brutally attacked by a group due to political enmity. The appellants, identified as activists of a political organization, were subsequently arrested. In December 2022, after nearly a year in cu...

Supreme Court Takes Strong Stand : No Bail for Accused in Vengeful Mob Attack

The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court's bail orders, cancelling the bail granted to the respondents. The Court found the allegations to be grave, shaking the conscience of the court, and noted an imminent likelihood of the accused adversely affecting a fair trial due to their influence and non-cooperation. The trial court was directed to expedite proceedings and ensure witness protection. Facts Of The Case: The incident in question occurred on May 2, 2021, following the announcement of the Assembly election results in West Bengal. The complainant, a follower of the Hindu religion and a supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party, alleged that he and his family faced threats and violence from supporters of the ruling dispensation in his village, Gumsima, where they were a min...

“Supreme Court Transfers Investigation to CBI in Shocking Custodial Torture & Death Case” : Police Brutality Exposed

The Supreme Court transferred the investigation of a custodial death case to the CBI, citing bias in the local police probe under "nemo judex in causa sua" (no one should judge their own cause). It emphasized witness protection for the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, and directed expedited arrests and trial, reinforcing accountability in custodial violence cases under constitutional safeguards. The judgment underscored fair investigation as a facet of Article 21. Facts Of The Case: The case stemmed from the custodial death of Deva Pardhi, a young man arrested by Madhya Pradesh police on 13th July 2024 during his wedding rituals in connection with a theft case (FIR No. 232/2024). Witnesses, including his uncle Gangaram Pardhi, alleged brutal torture—beatings, hanging upside down, and ch...