Filing SLP Against Bail Rejection After Years ‘Wrong Legal Advice’; Proper Course Is To Move HC For Bail : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has watched that recording a extraordinary take off request against the dismissal of bail by the High Court after a long delay of a long time was counter-intuitive and the correct course would be to apply for bail some time recently the High Court.

 The Court made this perception while hearing a appeal recorded after a delay of 1320 days against Allahabad High Court’s 2016 order dismissing bail.

 A bench comprising Judges Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy commented that they failed to appreciate as to why a uncommon take off request was recorded after the significant delay.

“This is clearly off-base legal counsel as the suitable course would be to apply for bail some time recently the High Court”, the bench said.

 The comments came as the bench said that it was coming over a number of such cases where after a long time together, a uncommon take off appeal was recorded against refusal of bail.


The bench within the display matter was hearing a request against the Allahabad High Court order dated September 30, 2016, wherein the single bench of Justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee had rejected a supplication looking for the discharge of the candidate on bail in Case Crime No. 594 of 2014, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Medical, Area- Meerut.

 “Looking at the nature of the offense, its gravity and the evidence in bolster of it and the in general circumstances of this case, this Court is of the see that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Subsequently, the supplication for bail of the applicant is rejected, the bench had remarked.

The applicant’s counsel had fought that the affirmations of demanding settlement and ill-treatment were off-base and the perished committed suicide since of a few household contradiction with her spouse as the spouse was not so taught as the expired was and she utilized to feel baffled with this unequal marriage.

 Opposing the plea, the AGA had fought that the applicant was the spouse and the post mortem examination demonstrated one scraped wound on the body of the expired, separated from the ligature mark seen around the neck which indicates that the expired was subjected to savagery some time recently her death.

It was too fought that the perished passed on unnatural passing under anomalous circumstances inside four years of her marriage and there was no persuading satisfactory clarification as to why she did commit suicide.

 “There is adequate prove on record to show not only demand for settlement but too brutal treatment which was dispensed out to her by the applicant and other family individuals and the applicant being spouse was not as it were capable for the security and welfare of his spouse but was too beneath overwhelming onus to clarify her unnatural passing taking place inside the regions of possess house. Indeed, commission of suicide is passing beneath irregular circumstances and might also come inside the ambit of settlement passing as has been settled by the Apex Court, AGA had contended whereas restricting the plea”.

Case Title: Gopal v. State of UP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close