Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim bail on the grounds of the Covid-19 pandemic, alleged jail overcrowding, long pendency of the regular bail applications, and parity with co-accused.
Analysis: The applications were considered on their own merits because the regular bail pleas could not be heard at that stage. The petitioner did not satisfy the criteria fixed by the High Powered Committee for release during the pandemic, since the case involved a foreign national, more than one case, and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The claim of parity was not accepted because the cited co-accused stood on a different footing, including the status of being an approver, medical grounds, or not being similarly placed in the CBI case. The Court also found that the petitioner was a flight risk and lacked roots in society, and rejected the plea that jail conditions or Covid-19 vulnerability justified release, noting that the petitioner was housed in a separate cell.
Conclusion: Interim bail was not warranted and the applications were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Interim bail may be declined where the applicant does not satisfy the applicable release criteria, poses a flight risk, and the asserted health or parity grounds are not made out on the facts.