1. Special Leave Petition — Challenge against High Court order granting bail to respondent. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1672
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Hima Kohli, JJ.
The Directorate of Enforcement – Appellant
Versus
Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh – Respondent
SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 32078 of 2022 (Arising Out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order Dated 04-10-2022 in BA No. 1021 of 2022 Passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Important Points
Observations in the order granting bail should be construed only for the purpose of bail and should not affect the merits of the trial or be pressed in any other collateral proceedings.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Headnote
Special Leave Petition - Grant of Bail - Clarification of Observations
Fact of the Case:
The High Court granted bail to the first respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the special leave petition against the grant of bail by the High Court and clarified that the observations in the impugned order were confined to the question of bail and should not affect the merits of the trial or be pressed in any other collateral proceedings.
Issues: Entertainment of special leave petition against grant of bail, Clarification of observations
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the observations in the impugned order of the High Court were limited to the question of bail and should not impact the merits of the trial or be used in other collateral proceedings.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate, Mr. Sudarshan K., Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate, Mr. Sudarshan K., Advocate, Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocate, Ms. Manisha Singh, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Observations in a bail order are limited to the determination of bail entitlement and should not influence the trial's merits or collateral proceedings. (Para 2 )
3. Observations made for the limited purpose of determining bail entitlement shall not affect the merits of the trial or collateral proceedings. (Para 2 )
4. Special Leave Petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Do observations made by a court while deciding a bail application affect the merits of the subsequent trial?
Observations made in an order granting bail are confined to the question of whether the respondent is entitled to bail and shall not affect the merits of the trial or be pressed in collateral proceedings. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. We are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition against the grant of bail by the High Court to the first respondent.
2. Since the observations in the impugned order of the High Court are confined to the question as to whether the respondent was entitled to the grant of bail, we clarify that these observations shall be construed only for that purpose. In other words, the observations shall not affect the merits of the trial or be pressed in any other collateral proceedings.
3. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
