TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Grants Bail to Bihar Fodder Scam Accused</h1> <h3>Laloo Prasad and Ors. Versus. State of Jharkhand and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court entertained Special Leave Petitions directly from two accused, former Chief Ministers of Bihar, challenging bail refusal in the Bihar ... - Issues:1. Challenge to orders refusing bail by accused in Bihar Fodder Scam case.2. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to entertain Special Leave Petition without approaching High Court first.3. Bail application for accused involved in Bihar Fodder Scam cases.4. Consideration of pre-trial detention period and seriousness of charges.5. Arguments regarding potential tampering with evidence and conditions for bail.Analysis:1. The Special Leave Petitions were filed by two accused, former Chief Ministers of Bihar, challenging the orders refusing bail in connection with the Bihar Fodder Scam case. The accused surrendered before the Special Court and continued in detention. The preliminary objection raised was regarding the necessity to approach the High Court first before the Supreme Court. However, due to special circumstances and interconnected cases, the Supreme Court decided to entertain the Special Leave Petitions directly.2. The accused had been in jail for over six months in connection with the Bihar Fodder Scam cases. Previous orders of the Court granting bail to other accused after six months of detention were considered. The most serious charge against the accused was under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After evaluating the merits of the case and the duration of pre-trial detention, the Court found further detention unnecessary.3. The opposing argument raised concerns about the accused being powerful and influential, potentially tampering with evidence and threatening witnesses if granted bail. The Court, however, decided to grant interim bail for six months to the accused, subject to stringent conditions to ensure compliance and prevent any interference with the trial process. The same conditions imposed in connected cases were deemed sufficient to allay fears expressed by the investigating agency.4. The conditions for bail included restrictions on influencing witnesses, mandatory court appearances, surrendering of passport if applicable, refraining from public comments on the case, and avoiding celebratory displays. The accused were required to execute a bond with sureties and abide by the specified conditions during the interim bail period. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, granting bail to the accused in light of the circumstances and conditions set by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
