Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat vs Lalji Popat And Ors. on 2 April, 1988

U.N. Pai vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 13 December, 2000

In the result, respectfully following and applying the ratio of the judgments in State of Gujarat v. Lalji Popat, (supra) and State Administration v. Ramesh Taurani (supra) and upon the prima facie findings as above, the applications are rejected without prejudice to the right of the applicants to pray for bail before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. If and when such a prayer is made, the Court will consider the same without in any way being influenced by the observations made in this order. Rule in each application is discharged.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - D H Waghela - Full Document

U.N. Pai, A. Majumdar And M.L. Varudkar vs State Of Gujarat on 13 December, 2000

In the result, respectfully following and applying the ratio of the judgments in STATE OF GUJARAT v. LALJI POPAT, (supra) and STATE ADMINISTRATION v. RAMESH TAURANI (supra) and upon the prima facie findings as above, the applications are rejected without prejudice to the right of the applicants to pray for bail before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. If and when such a prayer is made, the Court will consider the same without in any way being influenced by the observations made in this order. Rule in each application is discharged.
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - D H Waghela - Full Document

Lalji vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 January, 2023

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of entire proceeding of Case No. 1330 of 2021 (State Vs. Lalji and others) as well as Charge-Sheet dated 20.06.2021 bearing Charge-Sheet No. 74 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 51 of 2021, under Section 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station-Punch, District-Jhansi, as well as cogniznce order dated 01.09.2021, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Moth, District-Jhansi, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Man Singh vs Ganga Singh And Anr. on 2 August, 1989

14. The question of cancellation of bail arose before the Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Lalji Popat, (1988) 17 Reports 393. In this case all the relevant decisions have been taken into consideration and the principles on which bail can be granted have also been considered. Thereafter it has been observed that if the Sessions Judge grants bail erroneously or illegally or arbitrarily without considering the relevant factors then the High Court cannot feel helpless in setting aside the order of the Sessions Court. The High Court under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C. or under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has jurisdiction to quash and set aside any arbitrary or illegal orders passed by the subordinate courts. A number of circumstances were considered which had not been properly considered by the Sessions Court while granting bail and the order granting bail was cancelled.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vihabhai Sartanbhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2003

9. Number of factors which require consideration at the time of grant of bail have been enumerated in number of the decisions, but I have kept in mind the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Pratap Yadav v. Mitra Sen Yadav, reported in 2003 (1) GLR 514 (SC) and also observations made by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Lalji Popat and Ors., reported in 1988 (2) GLR 1073 and the ratio of this decision goes against the present applicant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - C K Buch - Full Document

Ilaben Wd/O. Dipakkumar Dhanraj Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 7 October, 1992

12. Mr. Marshal, learned Advocate for the complainant has placed reliance on a decision of This Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Lalji Popat and Ors. reported in 1988 (2) GLR 1073, where This Court had an occasion to set out main principles after considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is true that the nature of the offence and nature of case would be a relevant factor, but then that would be a factor for coming to a prima facie conclusion whether a particular accused is likely to be available at the time of trial or not. To reiterate the position and status of the petitioner as also inherent inability on the part of the petitioner being a woman accused to tamper with the prosecution evidence coupled with the facts of the present case should enure in favour of the grant of bail to the present petitioner, although by imposing certain conditions to secure her presence at the time of trial. Following order is, therefore, passed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Bhavnaben vs State on 12 May, 2011

8.1. Applying the aforesaid tests laid down by the Apex Court and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the Sessions Court granted bail to the respondent No.2 without considering the relevant factors, more particularly the fact that Section 376(2)(g) is a very serious offence and it is a offence against the Society, which attracts a minimum punishment of 10 years and which may extend to life imprisonment. It appears that the bail was granted to the respondent No.2-accused in wrong exercise of discretion by the trial court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K Jhaveri - Full Document
1   2 3 Next