Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State of Karnataka VS Sri Darshan...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1201 : The Supreme Court has established that bail orders may be annulled or cancelled in two distinct categories: (A) Annulment of bail due to legal infirmity in the order, such as when the bail is granted in disregard of material facts or in an arbitrary manner; and (B) Cancellation of bail due to post-grant misconduct or supervening circumstances. Specifically, bail may be cancelled if the original order was perverse, unjustified, or legally untenable, even in the absence of subsequent misconduct. The Court emphasized that bail granted without due application of mind to relevant factors—such as the gravity of the offence, strength of evidence, or conduct and antecedents of the accused—may be set aside. This principle was affirmed in Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana, where the Court held that a bail order passed in disregard of material facts or in an arbitrary manner can be set aside.Checking relevance for STATE OF BIHAR VS RAJBALLAV PRASAD @ RAJBALLAV PD. YADAV @ RAJBALLABH YADAV...
2016 8 Supreme 323 : The Supreme Court has laid down parameters for the cancellation of a bail order under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These include: (1) If granting bail to the accused may hamper a fair trial, particularly if witnesses are unable to depose without fear, freely, and truthfully; (2) When bail is granted without recording reasons, especially if material evidence on record is ignored; (3) When the High Court fails to consider relevant factors such as the accused''''s criminal antecedents, threats to the prosecutrix and her family, the nature of the offence (e.g., rape of a minor), and the rejection of bail for co-accused; (4) When the High Court makes casual or cryptic remarks without addressing the risk of the accused fleeing justice or tampering with evidence; (5) When provisions of special laws like Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, are ignored. The Court emphasized that the liberty of the accused must be balanced against the interest of society in ensuring a fair trial.Checking relevance for Santosh Kumar Kurre VS State of Chhattisgarh...
2017 0 Supreme(SC) 626 : The Supreme Court has the discretion to grant regular bail with conditions, and may warn the State that bail can be cancelled if the appellant interferes with witnesses or investigation. This establishes a key parameter for cancellation of a bail order: interference with witnesses or the investigation by the accused.Checking relevance for P VS State Of Madhya Pradesh...
2022 5 Supreme 178 : The parameters for cancellation of a bail order, as established by the Supreme Court in the referenced judgment, include: (1) the existence of very cogent and overwhelming circumstances; (2) supervening circumstances that have arisen after the grant of bail, which render it no longer conducive to a fair trial; (3) conduct of the accused post-bail that demonstrates interference with the administration of justice, evasion of justice, or abuse of the bail concession; (4) a bona fide fear that the accused may influence witnesses or prevent a fair trial; (5) the gravity and nature of the offence; (6) the prima facie case against the accused; (7) the position and standing of the accused; and (8) the superior court’s power to set aside a bail order if the lower court ignored relevant material, failed to consider the gravity of the offence, or overlooked societal impact, even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Importantly, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, and the court must exercise judicial discretion after due consideration of all relevant factors.Checking relevance for Subhendu Mishra VS Subrat Kumar Mishra...
1999 0 Supreme(SC) 231 : The Supreme Court has outlined the parameters for cancellation of a bail order in the judgment, stating that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation. The grounds for cancellation, which are illustrative and not exhaustive, include: (1) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice; (2) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice; (3) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner; and (4) the court''''s satisfaction, based on material on record, that there is a possibility of the accused absconding. The Court emphasized that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial.
