{"id":351268,"date":"2025-06-23T09:00:21","date_gmt":"2025-06-23T03:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=351268"},"modified":"2025-06-26T18:02:33","modified_gmt":"2025-06-26T12:32:33","slug":"bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/","title":{"rendered":"Merely stating bail proposal of accused is \u201cunder consideration\u201d not sufficient to deprive co-accused benefit of parity: Bombay High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> The present bail application was filed by the appellant under Section 439<\/a> of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (\u2018CrPC\u2019), who was charged for multiple offences under Sections 306<\/a>, 387<\/a>, 506(2)<\/a>, 427<\/a> and 323<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (\u2018IPC\u2019), as well as charges under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(ii)<\/a>, 3(2)<\/a> and 3(4)<\/a> of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999<\/a> (\u2018MCOCA\u2019). A Single Judge Bench of Amit Borkar<\/span>, J., held that the applicant was entitled to bail based on parity with the co-accused, who had already been granted bail by the same Court on the similar grounds.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

On 29-1-2023, the informant\u2019s brother was allegedly assaulted by a group of four individuals, including the applicant. The assailants physically assaulted the victim and used a metal seizer to forcibly extort money which caused fear and disruption in the locality. The next day, 30-1-2023, when the victim was closing his shop, he was reportedly threatened by the applicant\u2019s co-accused not to approach the police authorities regarding the assault. On 31-1-2023, the informant was informed by his nephew that his brother had committed suicide. A suicide note was recovered, in which two assailants were named along with the applicant. The Sessions Court had earlier rejected the applicant\u2019s bail, which led him to approach this Court.<\/p>\n

The applicant relied on the bail order dated 4-4-2025 granted to a co-accused, asserting that both the accused were similarly placed in terms of role and antecedents. The applicant\u2019s counsel argued that principle of parity should apply.<\/p>\n

However, the APP for the State opposed the grant of bail, arguing that the order passed in the other co-accused\u2019s case contained an incorrect observation to the effect that no Test Identification Parade (\u2018TIP\u2019) was conducted. Also, it was submitted that the applicant\u2019s role was made out from the statement of the co-accused under Section 18 MCOCA and other material collected during the investigation. The APP further argued that the State Government was likely to challenge the co-accused\u2019s bail order passed, based on which the application sought parity, and therefore, requested that the present hearing be deferred until that challenge was decided.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that mere intention or contemplation to file an appeal against a bail did not reduce the legal effect of an existing bail order unless such an order was stayed, modified, or set aside by a higher forum. Merely stating that a proposal was \u201cunder consideration\u201d was not sufficient to deprive another similarly situated accused of the benefit of parity. If an officer of the Prosecution Department or Police Department believed that the said order deserved to be challenged, such opinion must be translated into a concrete proposal, which contained cogent and justifiable reasons, supported by the record, and must be submitted to the Law and Judiciary Department of the Government of Maharashtra within a reasonable time.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that judicial accountability and transparency in administrative decision-making demanded that the order rejecting appeal against the bail must reflect application of mind and record reasons which indicated consideration of the facts of the case and such reasoning formed the bedrock of the doctrine of fairness in administrative law.<\/p>\n

The Court highlighted that in matters concerning where the liberty of a citizen was at stake, the law required promptness and responsibility from prosecuting authorities and the executive. Delay in acting on judicial orders could not become a ground to deny benefit of those very orders. Therefore, in matters where the State Government or prosecution intended to challenge a bail order passed by this Court, a proper and complete proposal, supported by necessary documents and justification, must be forwarded to the Law and Judiciary Department within two weeks from the date on which the bail order was uploaded on the official website of this Court.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that these timelines and obligations were not mere procedural formalities but were essential safeguards to uphold the rights guaranteed under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and to prevent unnecessary pre-trial incarceration.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the order was passed on 4-4-2025 but no proposal was prepared nor was filed with the Law and Judiciary Department as of 18-6-2025. The Court observed that the liberty of person could not be adjourned indefinitely as it might affect liberty of individual person who was entitled to be released on bail based on doctrine of parity because of such delays.<\/p>\n

The Court after examining material in the form of chargesheet, opined that it appeared that the applicant along with co-accused who was granted bail had been assigned similar role and the antecedents of both were also common. The Court opined that no other factor to distinguish their role or antecedents was brought to its notice which made the applicant entitled to the benefit of doctrine of parity.<\/p>\n

The Court allowed the bail application of the applicant and further clarified that if the order of the co-accused\u2019s bail was set aside in the future, it should be open for the prosecution to file an appropriate application.<\/p>\n

[Chetan Kisan Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2403<\/a>, decided on 18-6-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Applicant:<\/span> Nitin Sejpal a\/w Pooja Sejpal with Akshata Desai with Siddharth Gharat.<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Pallavi Dabholkar, APP<\/p>\n

Buy Constitution of India \u00a0HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860 \u00a0 HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The order rejecting appeal against the bail must reflect application of mind and record reasons which indicates consideration of the facts of the case and such reasoning forms the bedrock of the doctrine of fairness in administrative law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":314919,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[83957,83959,2569,83960,8361,71002,83956,83958,2752],"class_list":["post-351268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-article-21-bail","tag-bail-section-439-crpc","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-delayed-challenge-to-bail","tag-extortion","tag-justice-amit-borkar","tag-mcoca-bail","tag-parity-bail-order","tag-Suicide"],"yoast_head":"\nBom HC on bail parity when co-accused bail under consideration | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that merely stating bail proposal of accused was \u201cunder consideration\u201d was not sufficient to deprive co-accused persons benefit of parity.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Merely stating bail proposal of accused is \u201cunder consideration\u201d not sufficient to deprive co-accused benefit of parity: Bombay High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that merely stating bail proposal of accused was \u201cunder consideration\u201d was not sufficient to deprive co-accused persons benefit of parity.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-23T03:30:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-26T12:32:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Merely stating bail proposal of accused is \u201cunder consideration\u201d not sufficient to deprive co-accused benefit of parity: Bombay High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/\",\"name\":\"Bom HC on bail parity when co-accused bail under consideration | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-23T03:30:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-26T12:32:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court held that merely stating bail proposal of accused was \u201cunder consideration\u201d was not sufficient to deprive co-accused persons benefit of parity.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Bombay High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Merely stating bail proposal of accused is \u201cunder consideration\u201d not sufficient to deprive co-accused benefit of parity: Bombay High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bom HC on bail parity when co-accused bail under consideration | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court held that merely stating bail proposal of accused was \u201cunder consideration\u201d was not sufficient to deprive co-accused persons benefit of parity.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Merely stating bail proposal of accused is \u201cunder consideration\u201d not sufficient to deprive co-accused benefit of parity: Bombay High Court","og_description":"Bombay High Court held that merely stating bail proposal of accused was \u201cunder consideration\u201d was not sufficient to deprive co-accused persons benefit of parity.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-23T03:30:21+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-26T12:32:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Merely stating bail proposal of accused is \u201cunder consideration\u201d not sufficient to deprive co-accused benefit of parity: Bombay High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/","name":"Bom HC on bail parity when co-accused bail under consideration | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-23T03:30:21+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-26T12:32:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Bombay High Court held that merely stating bail proposal of accused was \u201cunder consideration\u201d was not sufficient to deprive co-accused persons benefit of parity.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Bombay High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/23\/bom-hc-bail-parity-when-co-accused-bail-under-consideration\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Merely stating bail proposal of accused is \u201cunder consideration\u201d not sufficient to deprive co-accused benefit of parity: Bombay High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":277792,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/21\/allahabad-high-court-anticipatory-bail-is-a-statutory-right-not-a-constitutional-right-successive-anticipatory-bail-application-not-maintainable-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":351268,"position":0},"title":"Allahabad High Court| Anticipatory bail is a statutory right not a Constitutional right; Successive anticipatory bail application not maintainable","author":"Editor","date":"November 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Allahabad high Court: In a second anticipatory bail application for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (\u2018IPC\u2019) and 3 or 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (\u2018POCSO Act\u2019), Suresh Kumar Gupta, J. said that Section 439 Code of Criminal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/allahabad_high_court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298116,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/31\/explained-bombay-hc-bail-man-killed-live-in-partner-cutting-body-parts\/","url_meta":{"origin":351268,"position":1},"title":"Bombay High Court grants bail to a man accused of killing live-in partner and cutting her body parts","author":"Ridhi","date":"July 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court expressed that the identification of totally decomposed body of the deceased needs to be decided during the trial.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"bombay high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257143,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/16\/bom-hc-discusses-law-where-accused-already-granted-bail-but-further-non-bailable-offences-are-added-by-prosecution\/","url_meta":{"origin":351268,"position":2},"title":"Bom HC discusses law where accused already granted bail but further non-bailable offences are added by prosecution. Read decision","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., reiterated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pradip Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 17 SCC 326 wherein it was held: \u201cwhere the accused is bailed out under orders of the Court and new offences are added\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":237390,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/13\/mp-hc-scope-and-extent-of-bail-conditions-under-s-4373-crpc-are-wide-enough-to-include-reformative-measures-like-community-service-but-ought-not-be-onerous-and-excessive-in-nature-hc-decides-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":351268,"position":3},"title":"MP HC | Scope and extent of bail conditions under S. 437(3) CrPC are wide enough to include reformative measures like community service, but ought not be onerous and excessive in nature; HC decides scope and application of Bail under POCSO and SC\/ST Act","author":"Editor","date":"October 13, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: Anand Pathak, J., while deciding an application against cancellation of bail said: in cases where \u201cany bail application of accused is allowed or rejected under Section 439 CrPC by the Special Court then appeal shall not lie under Section 14\u2013A(2) of the Atrocities Act. Only an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":185504,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/02\/bail-denied-due-pendency-recording-evidence-complainant-witnesses\/","url_meta":{"origin":351268,"position":4},"title":"Bail denied due to pendency of recording of evidence of the complainant witnesses","author":"Saba","date":"February 2, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Budihal R.B., J., decided a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC, wherein bail was denied to the petitioner-accused in light of the fact that evidence of complainant witnesses was yet to be recorded. The petitioner was co-accused in a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":237605,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/16\/hp-hc-does-s-18-18-a-of-sc-st-prevention-of-atrocities-act-1989-restricts-an-accused-from-surrendering-before-court-and-praying-for-interim-bail-under-s-439-cr-pc-hc-gives-a-reasoned-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":351268,"position":5},"title":"HP HC | Does S. 18\/18 A of SC\/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 restricts an accused from surrendering before Court and praying for interim bail under S. 439 CrPC? HC gives a reasoned order","author":"Editor","date":"October 16, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara J., delivered a well-reasoned order and held that the practice of the accused surrendering and getting interim bail cannot be said to override the legislative intention of restraining the anticipatory bail to the violators of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/351268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=351268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/351268\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=351268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=351268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=351268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}