#bail jurisprudence

The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that the 20% deposit under Section 148 NI Act is a statutory floor that appellate courts cannot reduce, holding that a Sessions Judge's reduction to 10% and subsequent bail cancellation for non-compliance with the unlawful condition was impermissible. This safeguards appellants from arbitrary deposit reductions and ensures bail conditions adhere strictly to the statutory mandate.

The Supreme Court cancelled bail for an espionage accused, holding substantial compliance with Article 22(1) and BNSS Section 47 suffices absent demonstrable prejudice, and hyper-technical objections to arrest-ground communication cannot override core bail jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 43D(7) UAPA's bail bar for foreign nationals applies only when initial entry was unauthorized, not when a valid visa merely expires. Default bail under Section 43D(2) remains unaffected by Section 43D(7)'s non-obstante clause, and bail cancellation requires supervening circumstances, not re-litigation of the original grant. The ruling shields legally present foreign nationals from automatic UAPA bail denial while preserving the framework for genuine threats.

Gujarat HC quashed the bail cancellation order of the POCSO Judge, Deesa, holding that Section 528 BNSS requires a hearing before liberty can be curtailed, safeguarding accused in POCSO cases and preventing bail withdrawal without a fair hearing.

The Delhi High Court permitted Natasha Narwal to travel to the UK for an academic conference despite pending UAPA charges, ruling that mere allegations cannot restrict her Article 21 right to travel abroad. The court imposed safeguards including a ₹1 lakh bond and undertakings to return, balancing personal liberty with investigative needs.

The Supreme Court held that bail orders ignoring video evidence and failing to record reasons are unsustainable, emphasizing that reasoned decisions are essential to justice. The ruling affects lower courts, mandating detailed reasoning and evidence appreciation in all bail applications.

Granting bail, the Court held that assets acquired before scheduled offence period cannot be treated as proceeds of crime under PMLA without a temporal nexus to alleged criminal activity. Court found no such link for the petitioner’s overseas assets.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act, holding that a notice must specify the exact cheque amount to be valid. It further clarified that any alteration in the cheque initialled by the accused does not void the instrument, refining the evidentiary requirements for dishonoured cheque cases.

The Delhi High Court quashed a Bank of Baroda Look Out Circular after the CBI completed its investigation, holding that an LOC cannot be maintained merely because trial is pending and affects individuals facing travel restrictions during trial.

Providing accommodation or transport in a POCSO case attracts abetment under Section 17, HP HC held, refusing to suspend sentence absent strong acquittal chance noting that support in child sexual abuse cases is punishable as abetment limits bail relief.

The Delhi HC ruled that under Section 439(1A) CrPC, the victim must be heard before bail, irrespective of the State’s presence. By quashing the accused’s bail, the court emphasized that victim participation is mandatory and non-waivable.

The Delhi High Court granted bail on a Rs 50,000 bond, holding that mere apprehension of repetition without explicit evidence, antecedents or seized machinery cannot deny bail in economic offences under the Health Security SE NSS Cess Act.

Delhi HC struck down trial court's prior permission condition for foreign travel, holding it cannot stand without bail, cognizance or summons; instead, two weeks' prior intimation suffices. This shields Article 21 travel rights for those not yet arrested or summoned.

The SC held that Article 22(1) breach needs written grounds & judicial sanction for re-arrest, while Article 22(2) breach draws State compensation. Victims need not sue officials; State liable and police must follow safeguards before re-detention.

The Gauhati High Court held that arrest notices under BNSS sections 47 and 48 omitting grounds of arrest violate Articles 21 and 22, vitiating the arrest and barring NDPS Section 37, thereby granting bail to the accused and upholding fundamental rights.