Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 606 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kajad on 6 September, 2001

Ramakanta Prasad vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 6 June, 2023

8.9 In the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain, while dealing with the case of an accused who was in custody since more than twelve years , after referring and discussing its earlier decisions in the case of Hussainara Khatoon (supra) that Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in (1981) 3 SCC 671 , State of BLAPL No.2127 of 2023 Page 18 of 25 //19// Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Under trial Prisoners) vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731, Shaheen Welfare Association vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 2 SCC 616, Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Union of India vs. Rattan Malik reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 amongst other decisions , has held as follows:
Orissa High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Ratho - Full Document

Vegi Srinivasa Rao vs The Senior Intelligence Officer on 16 June, 2021

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad (5 supra), the Apex Court held that the purpose for which the NDPS Act was enacted and the menace of drug trafficking which intends to curtail is evident from its scheme. A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that a person accused of an offence, punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) 10 GSD, J Crlp_4041_2021 of Section 37(1). For granting bail, the Court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Telangana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G S Devi - Full Document

Kaliya @ Kalu Trinath Gaud vs State Of Gujarat on 21 October, 2022

8. Apt also would be the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad (supra) wherein, in paragraph 8, it has been held and observed that successive bail application are permissible under the changed circumstances, but, without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under the criminal law. Paragraph 8, reads thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next