Bail Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court held that the bail bar in Section 43D(7) of the UAP Act applies only when the prosecution prima facie shows that the accused is not an Indian citizen and entered India unauthorisedly or illegally. A visa overstay after a lawful entry does not qualify. Dismissing the Union's appeal, it upheld the Madras High Court's order restoring an alleged Sri Lankan national's default bail (paras 30-31, 47, 50).

The Supreme Court set aside directions of the Orissa High Court which, after refusing anticipatory bail to the accused in a 2010 murder FIR from Rayagada, told them to surrender and directed the trial court to release them on regular bail on fixed terms. Once anticipatory bail was refused, it was not for the High Court to direct how the future should unfold. The magistrate's bail order fell with those directions, and the accused must surrender within two weeks (paras 3-6).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to the owner of a firm supplying scientific apparatus, accused in a CBN case over 2.021 kg of MD recovered from a co-accused (paras 2, 8, 12). Prima facie, his alleged role was confined to supplying scientific apparatus in the course of his business, his bona fides could not be ruled out, and nothing was recovered from him (para 10). For the limited purpose of bail, the Court held the Section 37 twin conditions satisfied (para 11).

The Supreme Court granted bail to J. Ramalaxmi, an accused in a CBI Anti-Corruption Branch, Raipur case under Section 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. She had been in custody for more than five months, the charge-sheet had been filed and charges were yet to be framed. Noting that she is a woman entitled to the benefit of Section 480 of the BNSS, the Court set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's refusal of bail (paras 2-7).

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man who, by his account, has been in custody since 08.05.2025 in a Surat case in which the contraband is alleged to have been recovered from his father, not from him (paras 3-4). The State opposed bail but could not dispute that nothing was recovered from the appellant (para 5). Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court allowed his appeal, set aside the Gujarat High Court's refusal of regular bail and left the bail terms to the trial court (paras 6-8).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to two men accused in a case over 379.230 kg of poppy straw, a commercial quantity seized from two co-accused (paras 5, 8). Prima facie, nothing apart from the co-accused's statements connected them with the contraband: no call detail records or location details were collected, and nothing was recovered from them (paras 5-6). For the limited purpose of bail, the Court held the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act satisfied (para 6).