citedby: 1007347

Jagannathan And Ors. vs The State on 23 September, 1983

(4) As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon's case 1980 SCC (Cri) 35 : 1979 Cri LJ 1036 all the under-trial prisoners against whom charge-sheets have not been filed within the specified period of limitation as contemplated under Section 468 (2) should be released consequent' upon the striking off of those cases.

Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Madheshwardhari Singh And Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 11 July, 1986

Then again in Hussainara Khatoon v. The State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1379 Bhagwati J. as his Lordship then was, indicated a time frame in these words:

Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jagannathan And Ors. vs The State on 23 September, 1983

(4) As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon's case, 1980 SCC (Cri) 35 : (1949 Cri LJ 1036) all the under-trial prisoners against whom charge-sheets have not been filed within the specified period of limitation as contemplated under Section 468(2) should be released consequent upon the striking off of those cases.

Madras High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Smt. Archana Guha vs Ranjit Alias Runu Guha Neogi And Ors. on 5 March, 1990

The determinations in Hussainura Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979 Cri LJ 1045) (SC) (supra), agreeing with Mr. Chatterjee, we hold, would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Calcutta High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Madheshwardhari Singh And Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 11 July, 1986

Then again in Hussainara Khatoon v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1379, Bhagwati, J., as his Lordship then was, indicated a time frame in these words : --

Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Anokhilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2019

The Constitution Bench also extensively referred to the earlier decisions of this Court in Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar15, Hussainara Khatoon (3) v. State of Bihar16, Hussainara Khatoon (4) v. State of Bihar6 and Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar17 and noted that the provisions of the Code are consistent with the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial emanating from Article 21. In para 86 of the Report, the Court framed guidelines. Sub-paras (9) and (10) thereof read as under: (Abdul Rehman Antulay case14, SCC p. 272) “86. (9) Ordinarily speaking, where the court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, shall be quashed. But this is not the only course open.

Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 78 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Mir Mohammed Ali vs State Of A.P. And Another on 18 July, 2000

In Hussainara Khatoon (I) (supra), the Supreme Court held that "expeditious trial and freedom from detention are part of human rights and basic freedoms." Therefore, it should be taken as well settled that denial of right to speedy trial and lengthy unconvicted detention violates fundamental right and human right. We, accordingly hold that denying speedy trial on the ground that the UT prisoners could not be produced before the Courts for want of adequate and sufficient police escort, violates the fundamental rights and human rights of UT prisoners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 31 August, 2012

In Hussainara Khatoon and others (VII) v. Home Secretary, Bihar & Others.[12], a three-Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with the rights of under-trial prisoners observed that sympathy for the under- trials who were in jail for long terms on account of pendency of cases had to be balanced having regard to the impact of crime on society and the fact situation.

Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 3 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Mihir Kumar Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 9 December, 1988

In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1379, Bhagwati, J. as his Lordship then was, indicated a time frame in these words :-

Calcutta High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Women Lawyers' Association vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2009

"39. It is far too well-settled to admit of any argument that the procedure prescribed by law for the deprivation of the right conferred by Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable [See E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/SC/0380/1973; Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India MANU/SC/0133/1978; M.H.Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0119/1978; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration MANU/SC/0184/1978; Sita Ram v. State of U.P MANU/SC/0244/1979; Hussainara Khatoon I v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna MANU/SC/0121/1979; Hussainara Khatoon II v. Home Secretary, State of Nihar, Patna MANU/SC/0119/1979; Sunil Batra II v. Delhi Administration MANU/SC/0184/1978; Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin MANU/SC/0014/1980; Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir MANU/SC/0079/1980; and Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi MANU/SC/0517/1981.

Madras High Court Cites 209 - Cited by 4 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results