Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1754

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ
Jyoti Rani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10853/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ram Naresh Yadav, Sarvesh Kumar Yadav
For the Respondents: Abhinav Bajaj, Rahul Khurana, Saksham Ojha, Bhavya Single

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing to grant bail in a criminal proceeding.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the rejection of their bail application by the High Court. The Court evaluated the request for leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 07-03-2026. The Court determined that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The primary issue was whether the order rejecting bail warranted appellate intervention by the Supreme Court. The Court, exercising its discretion, found no merit in the request and declined to disturb the lower court's finding. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s discretion in refusing bail, and the special leave petition was dismissed. (!) - The order states that the court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court rejecting the petitioner’s bail application. (!) - Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (!)

What is the standard for interfering with a High Court bail order in a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) petition?

What is the outcome of the Special Leave to Appeal in this case regarding bail cancellation or denial?

What is the court's disposition of pending interlocutory applications?

Table of Content
1. dismissal of petition against refusal of bail. (Para 1 , 2)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh rejecting the petitioner’s application for bail; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

2. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document