Rajasthan High Court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court’s Big Ruling: Criminal History Matters in Bail for Heinous Crimes

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Big Ruling: Criminal History Matters in Bail for Heinous Crimes

The Supreme Court overturned a bail order, ruling that the High Court failed to apply correct legal principles under Section 389 CrPC for suspending a sentence. It emphasized that post-conviction bail in heinous offences requires a palpable prima facie case for acquittal, not a re-appreciation of evidence or conjectural reasoning. Facts Of The Case: In a case originating from Rajasthan, the prosecutrix, a 14-year-old girl, testified that on June 13, 2023, Respondent No. 2 accosted her at gunpoint while she was defecating in a field. He covered her mouth, forcibly took her to a nearby abandoned house, and raped her. She immediately reported the incident to her family, and her father filed an FIR. The Trial Court convicted Respondent No. 2 under the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 20 years ...

Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Against Judicial Officer: Protects Subordinate Judiciary

The Supreme Court expunged the strictures passed by the Rajasthan High Court against a judicial officer, emphasizing that higher courts should refrain from making adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers without providing them an opportunity to be heard. The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Re: ‘K’, A Judicial Officer and Sonu Agnihotri v. Chandra Shekhar & Ors., highlighting that criticism of judicial orders should focus on errors rather than personal conduct. The judgment also recommended incorporating provisions in High Court Rules to mandate disclosure of criminal antecedents in bail applications, ensuring transparency and informed judicial decisions. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned observations were expunged. Facts Of The Case: The case involves ...

Judicial Service Reinstatement: Supreme Court Rules Against “Minor Irregularity” Discharge

The Supreme Court overturned the discharge of a judicial probationer, holding that termination based on alleged misconduct (like simultaneous degrees or non-disclosure of past employment after resignation) without a proper inquiry and opportunity to be heard is stigmatic and punitive, violating principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that minor omissions after resignation are not grounds for discharge, especially when the probationer completed training successfully Facts Of The Case: Pinky Meena, holding multiple degrees including LL.B. and LL.M., was a Grade-II Teacher in the Rajasthan Education Department from 2014. She applied for the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate post following an advertisement on November 18, 2017. After selectio...