Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka vs Narayanappa on 1 February, 1991

A.Jayaraj vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2009

The decision of Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka V. Narayanappa (1992 CRI.L.J.225) also did not apply to the facts of the present case. There, learned Sessions Judge who had otherwise the power to grant anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of the Code did so but without adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case. That order remained in force for about two years. Attempt was made to cancel the order thereafter. The High Court observed that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge having remained in force for two years and the bail obtained by accused not shown to have been misused there was no necessity of the cancellation of the order. I must bear in mind, that also did not involve any illegality or violation of judicial discipline and propriety.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

The Intelligence Officer, Directorate ... vs Mohammed Abdul Rab Alias Babloo And ... on 17 April, 1998

In support of this argument, he placed reliance on a decision in State by Kodugodi Police Station, Bangalore v Gulzar Khan, State of Karnataka v Narayanappa and Others and Hadiani Dei v State of Orissa and Others. In these cases, the Courts have held that the grant of bail is different from cancelling bail and these two matters will have to be considered and dealt with on a different basis. Very cogent and over-whelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. The grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner (these are only illustrative and not exhaustive). Satisfaction of the Court on the basis of material placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. As far as the principles enunciated regarding the cancellation of bail, there cannot be any quarrel. With these principles in mind, it is now necessary to consider the case on hand.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - M P Chinnappa - Full Document
1