The Apex Court, while refusing to entertain a Special Leave Petition, observed that the path of SLP for challenging a bail rejection order after lapse of limitation period amounts to wrong legal advice.
The bench was hearing a petition which had been filed after a delay of 1320 days for the purpose of challenging the Allahabad High Court’s 2016 order while rejected the bail.
The bench also observed that the advice of approaching the court through SLP was illogical and a proper legal course should’ve adopted by applying for a bail before High Court. The bench remarked that the applicants failed to address the reason behind the long delay.
The background facts of the instant case were that the Allahabad HC had rejected the applicant’s bail application in the year 2016 w.r.t. to charges under Sections 498A and 304B. The bench rejected the bail plea after considering that the applicant failed to make a case for bail.
The applicant’s counsel rejected the allegations posed of demanding dowry and ill-treatment and contended that the deceased committed suicide because of domestic incompatibility and unequal marriage.
The opposition counsel, on the other hand, analyzed the post mortem report of deceased and contended that the marks on deceased’s body clearly showed that she had been subjected to violence before her death. It was also submitted that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances and no convincing facts were on record to suffice the defence of her committing suicide.
The Supreme Court made remarks of “wrong legal advice” as lately it came across a number of cases where after a number of years, the path of SLP had been chosen to challenge the order of refusal of bail.
Leave a Reply