Anticipatory Bail Granted Ignoring Material Aspects, Nature & Gravity Of Offence Liable To Be Cancelled: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:4 mins read

Anticipatory Bail Granted Ignoring Material Aspects, Nature & Gravity Of Offence Liable To Be Cancelled

Case: Prashant Singh Rajput V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna

Case no.: Crl.A. No.: 001202-001202 / 2021

Court Observation: “The Court has to determine whether, on the basis of the material available at this stage, the High Court has applied the correct principles in allowing the applications for anticipatory bail. The offence is of a serious nature in which Vikas Singh was murdered. The FIR and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC indicate a specific role to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime. The order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations against Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court.”

“The supplementary challan dated 8 March 2021 indicates that more material had emerged during the course of investigation as against the events portrayed in the FIR registered at the behest of Ujiyar Singh. Hence, the case portrayed by the appellant could not have been ignored by solely relying on the counter-FIR,”

“The High Court has placed reliance upon the report submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC on 15 December 2020 to hold that Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh were not present when the incident occurred. However, the High Court has not addressed the clear deficiencies in the course of the investigation which has been highlighted in the order of the JMFC dated 13 February 2021 and the trial Court’s order dated 24 March 2021. These are, inter alia: (i) the failure to notice eye-witness statements; (ii) reliance on CCTV footage for the period of time after the incident had occurred, ignoring prior or contemporaneous footage; (iii) not collecting CCTV footage between Jabalpur and the scene of offence; (iv) relying on CDRs without determining if Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh had actually used the number; and (v) not conducting any fingerprint analysis.”

[doc id=11239]

Previous Posts

Employer Cannot Be Compelled To Appoint A Candidate Merely Because He Made Truthful Declaration Regarding Criminal Cases: Supreme Court

Section 138 NI Act – Summons To Directors Justified If Complaint Avers That They Were In Charge & Responsible For Conduct Of Business Of Company: Supreme Court

Specific Performance – ‘Readiness’ & ‘Willingness’ Can’t Be Proved For the First Time Before HC Through Affidavit Without Amending Pleadings: Supreme Court

Part-Time Employees Can’t Seek Regularization As Matter Of Right Contrary To Govt’s Regularization Policy: Supreme Court

Section 28 Contract Act – Clause Barring Payment Of Interest Not Hit: Supreme Court