Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR)

The Supreme Court held that a co-accused cannot seek bail solely on the basis that other accused persons were granted bail in the same offence. Bail based on parity should only be granted to co-accused who are suspected of committing similar actions.

The accused was charged with the murder, while his father, the co-accused, was charged with instigating the crime. The Allahabad High Court granted bail to his father after considering that he had a strong alibi. Subsequently, the High Court granted bail to the accused on the sole ground of parity since his father was granted bail by the same Court. The appellant-complainants prayed for his bail to be set aside.

The Supreme Court stressed that bail based on parity must consider the specific circumstances of every individual accused of the alleged crime. The Court must examine the unique role each person played in the offence and not just treat the fact that they are involved in the same crime as a common factor. The bench also stated that no one has a right to claim bail based purely on parity.

The Supreme Court held that complaints of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be tried by the court within the territorial jurisdiction of the payee’s home branch. The Court ruled that even if a cheque is deposited at a different branch of the same bank, legally, it counts as being delivered to the customer’s home branch when determining which court has jurisdiction.

A Cheque drawn by Jai Balaji Industries Limited in the name of the complainant company, M/s HEG Limite,d was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The Cheque, drawn in Kolkata, was deposited in Bhopal. A statutory notice of dishonour was sent to the accused company, and subsequently, a complaint was filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. Later, the Court, upon request by the complainant, returned the case, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under Section 142 of the NI Act. Following this, a complaint was registered with the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhopal, which Balaji Industries objected to. The JMFC Court rejected the objection. This was challenged in a criminal revision application before the Sessions Court, Bhopal, pending adjudication. The matter was taken up by the Supreme Court under its Criminal Original Jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court relied on Dashrath Rupsingh Rathord v State of Maharashtra and held that the question of jurisdiction must strictly arise from the lens of territoriality of the offence. The Court held that Section 142(2) of the NI Act confers jurisdiction to the Court within whose limits the payee’s bank is situated.

The Supreme Court held that it is fundamental to the rule of law to maintain the sanctity and finality of judicial verdicts. Public confidence in the judiciary is maintained if the finality of verdicts is upheld.

In January 2025, the Supreme Court granted bail to SK. Md. Anisur Rahaman, who faced trial for the murder of his political rival. The bail conditions restricted him to Kolkata. In May 2025, his plea seeking a modification of the bail condition was rejected by the Supreme Court. Rahman subsequently approached the Court once again, seeking a modification of the bail condition. Another petition was filed seeking the cancellation of his bail by the brother of the deceased rival.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application and the plea seeking the cancellation of his bail. The Court noted that the condition requiring him to stay in Kolkata would be frustrated if it was modified. Moreover, the Court held that Rahaman’s fresh application was an attempt to acquire a new verdict from the Court as the presiding Judge who granted him bail and dismissed his application for modification had retired.

The Supreme Court held that debtors cannot challenge an auction sale if they knew about the process to seize and sell their property and had a chance to raise objections before the final sale notice (sale proclamation) was issued.

To fulfill a debt, property attached from K.J. Prakash Kumar and other debtors was scheduled for auction. Prakash Kumar and the other judgement debtors appeared before the executing court on multiple dates, sought adjournments, filed counters and later chose not to participate. The sale was confirmed in favour of G.R. Selvaraj. Both the executing court and the appellate court upheld the sale. The Madras High Court set it aside on the ground that selling a smaller portion of the property might have covered the debt.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Order and restored the sale. It held that any objection to selling only part of the property should have been raised by Prakash Kumar and the other judgement debtors before the proclamation of sale. Since they had full notice and failed to act at the appropriate stage, they were barred from challenging the sale belatedly under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.