Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows: The appeals concern orders by the High Court granting bail to two accused individuals involved in a serious criminal case. The orders were challenged on the grounds of whether the bail was rightly granted, considering the gravity of the offence and other factors (!) (!) . The offences involved are grave and serious, with multiple criminal cases pending against the accused. The fact that the offences are serious does not, by itself, justify refusal of bail. The High Court exercised its discretion in favor of granting bail after considering relevant materials (!) (!) (!) . The accused individuals had been named in the FIR on the date of the incident, and their involvement was supported by witness statements, including statements recorded under legal procedures, which indicated their participation or conspiracy. However, the timing and reliability of some witness statements, especially those recorded after a delay, were contested (!) (!) . The courts emphasized that the mere seriousness of the offence or the existence of other pending criminal cases against the accused does not automatically preclude bail. The courts found no evidence of non-application of mind or improper exercise of discretion in the High Court's decisions (!) (!) . The courts acknowledged the importance of considering whether there was a prima facie case established by the evidence on record and whether the order granting bail was made after proper application of judicial discretion. They found that the High Court's decisions met these criteria and dismissed the appeals accordingly (!) (!) . The courts also considered the fact that the accused had no prior criminal history or previous convictions and that there was no concrete evidence suggesting they would flee or tamper with witnesses if released on bail (!) (!) . Overall, the courts upheld the High Court's discretion to grant bail, emphasizing that the factors cited by the appellant, such as the gravity of the offence and pending cases, alone, are insufficient to deny bail if there is no evidence of improper exercise of judicial discretion (!) (!) . Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal guidance related to this case.

Prabhakar Tewari vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 75

DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Prabhakar Tewari – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Rishi Malhotra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Rohit K. Singh, Praveen Jain, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The appeals concern orders by the High Court granting bail to two accused individuals involved in a serious criminal case. The orders were challenged on the grounds of whether the bail was rightly granted, considering the gravity of the offence and other factors (!) (!) .
The offences involved are grave and serious, with multiple criminal cases pending against the accused. The fact that the offences are serious does not, by itself, justify refusal of bail. The High Court exercised its discretion in favor of granting bail after considering relevant materials (!) (!) (!) .
The accused individuals had been named in the FIR on the date of the incident, and their involvement was supported by witness statements, including statements recorded under legal procedures, which indicated their participation or conspiracy. However, the timing and reliability of some witness statements, especially those recorded after a delay, were contested (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the mere seriousness of the offence or the existence of other pending criminal cases against the accused does not automatically preclude bail. The courts found no evidence of non-application of mind or improper exercise of discretion in the High Court's decisions (!) (!) .
The courts acknowledged the importance of considering whether there was a prima facie case established by the evidence on record and whether the order granting bail was made after proper application of judicial discretion. They found that the High Court's decisions met these criteria and dismissed the appeals accordingly (!) (!) .
The courts also considered the fact that the accused had no prior criminal history or previous convictions and that there was no concrete evidence suggesting they would flee or tamper with witnesses if released on bail (!) (!) .
Overall, the courts upheld the High Court's discretion to grant bail, emphasizing that the factors cited by the appellant, such as the gravity of the offence and pending cases, alone, are insufficient to deny bail if there is no evidence of improper exercise of judicial discretion (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal guidance related to this case.

JUDGMENT

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

Leave granted in both the appeals.

2. These appeals arise out of two orders passed by the High Court on 11th September, 2019 granting bail to two accused persons, Vikram Singh@ Vikki (in SLP(Crl.) No.9207/2019) and Malkhan Singh (in SLP(Crl.) No.9209/2019) arraigned in a criminal case initiated on the basis of a First Information Report dated 7th February 2009. The said report was made by Prabhakar Tewari, being the appellant (in both the appeals) in Police Station Jagadishpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. The appellant is the son of the deceased victim, Purushottam Dutt Tiwari. He was assaulted by gunshots on 7th February, 2019 at about 4.00 p.m. while returning to his residence after attending the Court in connection with a case. In the first appeal (i.e. SLP(Crl.)No.9207 of 2019), the appellant assails the order granting bail to Vikram Singh @ Vikky by the High Court. In the statement of the appellant recorded in the evening on the date of occurrence at about 8.40 p.m., five persons have been named as direct assailants. Said Vikram Singh in the First Information Report has been named as the person by whom the “incident has been committed”. In his stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. While multiple references cite the case of "Prabhakar Tewari" (or variants thereof), there is no clear indication within the summaries that any subsequent judgment has explicitly criticized, overruled, or rejected the case as bad law. Many references seem to rely on or follow the principles established in Prabhakar Tewari, particularly regarding bail and criminal antecedents, which suggests continued judicial reliance rather than disapproval.

Numerous cases cite "Prabhakar Tewari" (or variants like Tewari v. ... State of U.P., 2020 SCC 648, etc.) as a foundational or guiding precedent, especially in the context of bail, criminal antecedents, and pendency of cases. For example:

Specific references to the case of "Prabhakar Tewari" (and variants) in relation to bail, criminal antecedents, pendency of cases, and legal principles are prevalent, indicating that the case continues to be a significant authority in these contexts.

No entries explicitly mention that "Prabhakar Tewari" has been distinguished from other cases or criticized as bad law. The references appear to reinforce its principles rather than challenge or limit its authority.

Several references to "Prabhakar Tewari" involve reliance on its principles but do not specify whether the case has been overruled or criticized. For example:

These do not clarify whether the treatment of "Prabhakar Tewari" has evolved to be less favorable or if it has been explicitly overruled or criticized. The absence of explicit negative treatment suggests that the case remains generally good law or at least unchallenged.

The references to "Prabhakar Tewari" in the context of bail and criminal law principles are consistent, with no indication of adverse treatment.

2020 Supreme(SC) 75

DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSEPrabhakar Tewari – AppellantVersusState of U. P. – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Prabhakar Tewari – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent