SLP (Crl) - The Legal Chamber

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

13Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

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...

Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the appellants. This decision was based on a comprehensive One Time Settlement with the Bank, full repayment of dues, and dismissal of recovery proceedings. The Court noted that continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose, especially given similar cases against co-accused were also quashed on grounds of settlement Facts Of The Case: N.S. Gnaneshwaran and N.S. Madanlal, accused nos. 3 and 6 respectively, are the appellants in this case. They were facing criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 16 of 2006, arising from FIR No. RC MA1 2005 0020, based on a complaint lodged by respondent no.2 - Bank on April 27, 2...

“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC

The Supreme Court ruled that bail parity cannot be mechanically applied when material distinctions exist between accused persons. It held that alleged conspirators/masterminds of a serious crime (Section 302 IPC) cannot claim bail parity with minor co-accused, especially when evidence suggests their active role in hiring a contract killer. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must consider the gravity of allegations, evidentiary role of each accused, and potential witness intimidation, rather than granting parity as a blanket rule. The judgment clarified that "parity" under Section 439 CrPC requires comparable roles, not mere similarity of charges. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a brutal shooting during a marriage procession in Rajasthan on November 28, 2023. The prosecution al...