LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Vitthal Damuji Meher vs. Manik Madhukar Sarve and Others

Not available · 2024 INSC 785Decided 15 Oct 2024
Not available
Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Background

Earlier, in a judgment dated 28.08.2024 (2024 INSC 636), the Supreme Court had cancelled the bail earlier granted to Vitthal Damuji Meher by the High Court and directed him to surrender within three weeks, after the original complainant (Manik Madhukar Sarve) had appealed against that bail grant. Meher then filed the present review petition, arguing that the Court's earlier observations were factually incorrect, that relevant precedents on "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" were ignored, and that he was being unfairly singled out since his co-accused had been released on bail.

Decision Breakdown

The same bench that decided the original appeal reviewed its own judgment and found no error warranting review. It held that grant of bail to a co-accused does not automatically entitle another accused to bail, since facts of each person's role differ, and that the petitioner's roughly 5.5-month period in custody before his (now-cancelled) bail did not amount to the kind of prolonged incarceration recognized in precedents like Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb. The Court noted its earlier judgment had already addressed his medical needs and had expressly kept open his right to apply for bail afresh before the trial court or High Court "at a later period or in the event of a change in circumstances," without being inhibited by the earlier adverse observations. Finding no discernible ground for review, the Court dismissed the review petition along with the related applications (for open-court hearing, exemption from surrender, and filing additional documents), noting the surrender period had by now already lapsed.

Lesson Learnt

A review petition is not a second chance to re-argue a case. The Supreme Court will only revisit its own judgment for a genuine, demonstrable error, not because a party disagrees with how the earlier bench weighed the facts; and cancellation of one person's bail does not by itself bar them from applying for bail again later if circumstances genuinely change.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case