Lambert Kroger vs State on 28 February, 2000
Thus the principles laid down in The State vs. Captain Jagjit Singh were held to be applicable for grant of bail under Section 439 of the new Code also.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 573 (0.75 seconds)Documents citing
The State vs Captain Jagjit Singh on 14 September, 1961
Lambert Kroger vs Enforcement Directorate on 28 February, 2000
16. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh and other Vs. State (supra) were followed by the Supreme Court in Miss Harsh Sawhney Vs. Union Territory and in Mohan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh .
Gurbaksh Singh Sibia vs State Of Punjab on 13 September, 1977
"The third consideration is the larger interest, of the State, as pointed out by this Court in State v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253. We feel that this interest was not adequately kept in view by the High Court and this requires that the respondents should be kept in custody for six months from the order of the High Court, dated August 1, 1969."
Chandan Singh vs Yashvinder Chauhan on 17 September, 1993
There are other cases, namely, (1) State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, , and (2) State v. Jaspal SinghGill, , where orders of the High Court granting bail to the accused were set aside, considering the gravity of the offence with which the accused therein werecharged.The decision relied upon by Mr. Sood, reported as Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 Cr.L.J. 160with all respects, does not lay down any general principles asit is manifest that their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not approve the order passed by the High Court in cancellingbail, in view of the observations made in that order taking into consideration status of the victim of the incident, and such extraneous factors as place of incident being inside premises of a hospital and other allied circumstances.
State vs Mahinder Singh on 17 September, 1993
Gurcharan Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Administration) on 6 December, 1977
In dealing with the question of bail under Section 498 of
the old Code under which the High Court in that case had
admitted the accused to bail, this Court in The State v.
Captain Jagjit Singh, (supra) while setting aside the order
of the High Court granting bail, made certain general
observations with regard to the principles that should
govern in granting bail in a non-bailable case as follows
"It (the High Court) should then have taken
into account the various considerations, such
as, nature and seriousness of the offence, the
character of the evidence, circumstances which
are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable
possibility of the presence of the accused not
being secured at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being tampered with,
the larger interests of the public or the,
State, and similar other considerations, which
arise when a court is asked for bail in a non-
Anandraj S/O Menpal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 October, 2025
12. As far as the judgment cited by the learned State counsel in
State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (supra) is concerned, the said
decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to
consider the relevant factors such as the nature and seriousness
of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances
peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of the accused
not being available for trial, and the fact that the accused therein
was facing trial before the Sessions Court for an offence
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 03:08:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/10/2025 at 10:03:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:43090] (12 of 15) [CRLMB-13203/2025]
punishable with a maximum sentence of fourteen years. In
contrast, in the present case, the petitioner is facing trial before
the Magistrate Court, has already undergone incarceration for
more than nineteen months, and even in the event of conviction,
cannot be sentenced to more than seven years of imprisonment.
Although the provisions of Section 480(6) BNSS are not applicable
to the present proceedings since the charges have not yet been
framed, the purpose and spirit of the said provision cannot be
ignored, particularly when the accused has already undergone 19
months of imprisonment in a case triable by a Magistrate.
A. Prasad vs State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 1981
The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Jagjit Singh which thought was a case under old S. 498 which corresponds to the present S. 439 of the Code. At para 13 of the same judgment, it is held as under :
State Of Gujarat vs Lalji Popat And Ors. on 2 April, 1988
15. The aforesaid ratio nowhere lays down that while considering the bail application the Court should only consider whether there was likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution evidence. The Court has emphasized that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others and there cannot be any inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The Court thereafter held that the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of State v. Captain Jagjit Singh AIR 1962 SC 253, equally apply to a case under Section 439 of the new Code and the legal position is not different under the new Code:
Anil Mahajan vs Commissioner Of Customs & Anr. on 4 February, 2000
The Supreme Court also opined that the general observations contained in the judgment in The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh (supra) with regard to the principles that should govern the grant of bail in the case of a non-bailable offence under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 equally applied to the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1974 and that the legal position was not different under the new Code.