Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 89 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing R.Rathinam vs State By Dsp, District Crime Branch on 8 February, 2000

P. Muthupandi vs State Rep. By The on 21 November, 2008

The decision cited supra also makes it crystal clear that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.Rathinam V. State (AIR 2000 SC 1851) is only in respect of the exercise of suo motu power of the High Court and in the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared that any individual is having right and he can approach this Court challenging an order of bail.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - K N Basha - Full Document

Mahesh Pahade vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2018

In this behalf the ratio laid down in the case of R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai and anr (2000) 2 SCC 391, needs to be seen. In this case Bail had been granted to certain persons. A group of practising advocates presented petitions before Chief Justice of the High Court seeking initiation of suo motu proceedings for cancellation of bail. The Chief Justice placed the petitions before a Division Bench. The Division Bench refused to exercise the suo motu powers on the ground that the petition submitted by the advocates was not maintainable. This Court held that the frame of sub-section (2) of Section 439 indicates that it is a power conferred on the Courts mentioned therein. It was held that there was nothing to indicate that the said power can be exercised only if the State or investigating agency or a Public Prosecutor moves a petition. It was held that the power so vested in the High Court can be invoked either by the State or by any aggrieved party. It was held that the said power could also be exercised suo motu by the High Court. It was held that, therefore, any member of the public, whether he belongs to any particular profession or otherwise could move the High Court to remind it of the need to exercise its power suo motu. It was held that there was no barrier either in Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code or in any other law which inhibits a person from moving the High Court to have such powers exercised suo motu. It was held that if the High Court considered that there was no need to cancel the bail then it could dismiss the Petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sathyavani Ponrani vs Samuel Raj on 7 July, 2010

In this behalf the ratio laid down in the case of R. Rathinam v. State by DSP [(2000) 2 SCC 391] needs to be seen. In this case bail had been granted to certain persons. A group of practising advocates presented petitions before the Chief Justice of the High Court seeking initiation of suo motu proceedings for cancellation of bail. The Chief Justice placed the petitions before a Division Bench. The Division Bench refused to exercise the suo motu powers on the ground that the petition submitted by the advocates was not maintainable. This Court held that the frame of sub-section (2) of Section 439 indicates that it is a power conferred on the courts mentioned therein. It was held that there was nothing to indicate that the said power can be exercised only if the State or investigating agency or a Public Prosecutor moves a petition. It was held that the power so vested in the High Court can be invoked either by the State or by any aggrieved party. It was held that the said power could also be exercised suo motu by the High Court. It was held that, therefore, any member of the public, whether he belongs to any particular profession or otherwise could move the High Court to remind it of the need to exercise its power suo motu. It was held that there was no barrier either in Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code or in any other law which inhibits a person from moving the High Court to have such powers exercised suo motu. It was held that if the High Court considered that there was no need to cancel the bail then it could dismiss the petition. It was held that it was always open to the High Court to cancel the bail if it felt that there were sufficient reasons for doing so."
Madras High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 15 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

14.02.2013 vs Dr. Javvaji Koti Nagaiah

There can be no dispute that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court and it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative. As held in STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. PRAKASH CHAND4, R. RATHINAM v. STATE BY DSP (2 supra) and STATE OF U.P. v. NEERAJ CHAUBEY5 the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suneel Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 18 February, 2019

In the case of R. Rathinam vs. State By DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai and Another [(2000) 2 SCC 391], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that frame of sub-Section 2 of Section 439 Cr.P.C. indicates that it is a power conferred on the Court. It is further held that there was nothing to indicate that the said power could be exercised only if the State or Investigating agency or Public Prosecutor move an application. It was further held that the power so vested in the High Court can be invoked on behest of any aggrieved party. Thus, if informant (victim) can file an application for cancellation of bail, then, in our view he/she can also oppose the bail prayer of accused and/or convict.
Allahabad High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

In Re, Suo Motu Cognisance By A Special ... vs The Union Of India on 2 September, 2019

v. Neeraj Chaubey & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 320, had taken note of various judgments of this Court including State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik, AIR1982 SC 1198; Inder Mani v. Matheshwari Prasad, (1996) 6 SCC 587; Prakash Chand (Supra) (1998) 1 SCC 1; R. Rathinam v. State, (2002) 2 SCC391; and Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294, and came to the conclusion that the Chief Justice is the master of roster. The Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in Patna High Court MJC No.3659 of 2019 dt.02-09-2019 20/36 sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, but inheres in him in the very nature of things. The Chief Justice enjoys a special status and he alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in a Division Bench or a Full Bench. He has jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by which Bench.
Patna High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Karra Parasuramaiah vs The State Of Bihar on 2 September, 2019

v. Neeraj Chaubey & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 320, had taken note of various judgments of this Court including State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik, AIR1982 SC 1198; Inder Mani v. Matheshwari Prasad, (1996) 6 SCC 587; Prakash Chand (Supra) (1998) 1 SCC 1; R. Rathinam v. State, (2002) 2 SCC391; and Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 8 SCC 294, and came to the conclusion that the Chief Justice is the master of roster. The Chief Justice has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provisions contained in Patna High Court MJC No.3659 of 2019 dt.02-09-2019 20/36 sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, but inheres in him in the very nature of things. The Chief Justice enjoys a special status and he alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in a Division Bench or a Full Bench. He has jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by which Bench.
Patna High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next