Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 223 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Himanshu Sharma vs State Of M.P on 11 April, 2019

Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 27 January, 2026

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) that bail once granted can be cancelled, if the accused person flouts the terms and conditions of the bail.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document

Sri Ashwin Mahendra vs State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2024

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Himanshu Sharma case and in the catena of decisions that merely some cases registered against the accused, that itself is not a ground for cancelling the bail, if the order of bail passed by the Session Judge by giving the proper 44 reason by analysing the merits of the case. But here in this case, the learned Sessions Judge not at all considered the gravity of the offence and other averments made in the charge sheet and requirement of the custodial interrogation of the accused for the further investigation. That apart the accused/respondent No.2 violated the conditions of bail by not cooperating with the Investigation Agency as per the submission of Additional SPP. Therefore, as per the order of the Sessions Judge, the bail order automatically get cancelled.
Karnataka High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

Unilever Industries Private Limited vs State Of Karnataka By Kadugodi Police ... on 19 June, 2024

17. Learned Senior Advocate places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh10 to contend that in a similar case, where bail was granted and a criminal miscellaneous case was moved before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail, contending that there was gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the Court and indulging in fraud in entertaining the petition, the bail granted was cancelled by 9 (2018) 16 SCC 511 10 (2024) 4 SCC 222 16 the High Court. But the Hon'ble Apex Court found that this case was not for cancellation of bail. It categorically held that consideration for grant of bail is entirely different from cancellation thereof. The documents that are placed before the Court by the petitioner cannot be looked into by this Court as the same is liable to be scrutinized by the Investigating Officer.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mevindi Veeresha Alias Eranna A Alur vs Harihar Town Police Station on 5 July, 2024

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was taken into custody on 12-01-2024 in Crime No.12 of 2024 and was released only on 18-06-2024 after the Court granted bail. Therefore, throughout from 14-01-2024 till 18-06-2024, he obviously could not have been present in the impugned proceedings, as he was in judicial custody. Based on these circumstances, the bail that was granted on 31-08-2023 comes to be cancelled. It is settled principle of law that when an accused is set on liberty by grant of bail, the bail should not ordinarily be cancelled, except in certain circumstances, those are explained by the Apex Court in the 12 judgment in the case of HIMANSHU SHARMA V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next