Back
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
K Rajapandian – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
1. Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 read with Section 482 of Cr.PC in FIR No. 67/2022 dated 09.02.2022 registered at Police Station Greater Kailash. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 279/338 IPC and subsequently Sections 307/308 IPC have also been invoked.
2. In brief, the FIR was registered on 09.02.2022 at 0045 hours with reference to the alleged incident which occurred on 08.02.2022 about 17:15 hours, on the statement of one Rampal Negi. He alleged that he had been working as a driver in B-92, Greater Kailash-I with one Bal Gopal Mandelia. On 08.02.2020 about 05:15 PM while he was standing on the main road along with other drivers namely Laxman and Jaswant, injured Anant Vijay Mandelia came from his house and started walking on the main road. In the meanwhile, he saw a yellow car coming from the direction of Ikhaya Hotel, Greater Kailash-I, B Block at a very high speed and driven in zigzag manner which hit Anant Vijay Mandelia who fell on the bonnet of the car. However, the car did not stop and after travelling 100 meters, sudden brakes were applied on which Anant Vijay Mandelia fell on the road from the bonnet and the dri
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "questioned" that suggest any case has been negatively treated in subsequent jurisprudence. Therefore, based on the information given, no case can be definitively categorized as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed / Consistently Treated]
The cases discussing principles of bail and their considerations, such as Anil Kumar Yadav VS State (NCT) of Delhi - 2018 1 Supreme 109, Kanwar Singh Meena VS State of Rajasthan - 2012 7 Supreme 658, Sanjay Chandra VS CBI - 2011 8 Supreme 270, and Mahipal VS Rajesh Kumar @ Polia - 2019 8 Supreme 732, appear to be consistent in their treatment of the factors influencing bail decisions. They emphasize relevant considerations like the nature of the charge, severity of punishment, and application of judicial discretion, suggesting these are well-established principles that have not been overruled or questioned in this list.
For example, Sanjay Chandra VS CBI - 2011 8 Supreme 270 discusses the importance of considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment, aligning with standard legal principles on bail. Similarly, Mahipal VS Rajesh Kumar @ Polia - 2019 8 Supreme 732 emphasizes the importance of reasons in bail decisions and the appellate court's cautious approach, reflecting consistent judicial treatment.
The case Suleman Rahiman Mulani VS State Of Maharashtra - 1967 0 Supreme(SC) 349, which clarifies that holding a learner’s license does not imply guilt under Section 304-A IPC, appears to be a straightforward interpretation that is likely followed in subsequent decisions.
The case State Of Orissa VS Debendra Nath Pandhi - 2004 8 Supreme 568, which states that only prosecution material is considered at the stage of framing of charge, reflects a procedural principle that is standard and likely followed.
[Distinguished / Clarified]
The case Neeru Yadav VS State of U. P. - 2014 8 Supreme 579, which discusses the considerations for bail in cases involving misconduct after bail is granted, appears to clarify the circumstances under which the court can interfere with bail, emphasizing non-interference unless the grant is perverse. This could be a clarification of existing principles rather than a departure or negative treatment.
The case STATE TR. P. S. LODHI COLONY NEW DELHI VS SANJEEV NANDA - 2012 5 Supreme 321, which discusses the nature of hit-and-run cases and community service, seems to clarify the applicable law rather than question or overrule previous law.
None of the cases explicitly indicate that their rulings have been questioned, criticized, or overruled based solely on the provided language. However, the absence of subsequent treatment references in this list means that their current judicial standing cannot be definitively established. Without further case law references or judicial treatment notes, these cases remain presumed to be good law but with an uncertain status regarding their current authoritative standing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
