Fir No: 106/13 1 State vs . Rohit Kundu on 16 October, 2014
FIR No. 106/13 State vs. Rohit Kundu 6 of 6
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 161 (2.30 seconds)Nafees Ahmad Siddiqui And Ors. vs State on 19 April, 1999
In State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and Anr. (supra) it was held that "where there is prima facie material showing commission of crime as a result of well orchestrated conspiracy, equipping the accused with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, before they were interrogated by the police would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unveiling all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence.". In the said case it was also held that discretion was not properly exercised by the High Court and the order granting anticipatory bail was quashed.
Vijay Aggarwal And Dinesh Aggarwal vs The C.B.I. on 10 March, 1999
In view of this, the decision in the case of Saluddin Abulsamad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu & another (supra) would be applicable, and therefore, the present applications for the relief of release before arrest under Section 438 of the Code would not be maintainable since after the filing of the charge-sheet, the Court, for the grant of relief under Section 439 of the Code would inter- vene as the provisions of Section 438 are not meant/intended to bye pass the regular Court under Section 439 of the Code.
Smt Nirmala Meena vs State on 17 April, 2018
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. vs.
Bimal Krishna Kundu & Anr. and in Sudhir vs. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. has declined to extend the benefit of pre
arrest bail to the accused-persons after taking into consideration
the allegations of corruption and misappropriation of public funds.
I am of the opinion that no straightjacket formula can be laid for
grant or refusal of anticipatory bail and the application for
anticipatory bail is to be decided on the basis of available facts in
each case.
Mr. Amaan Khan vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 5 December, 2025
"14. It is trite law that the power to grant a pre-arrest bail
under Section 482 of the BNSS is extraordinary in nature and
is to be exercised sparingly. Thus, pre-arrest bail cannot be
granted in a routine manner. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
case of State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu, (1997) 8 SCC
104, held as under:
Sumedh Singh Saini vs State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2020
Learned counsel for the respondent/State in unison have
submitted that crimes do not die with the efflux of time and can be
revived at any point of time as and when evidence surfaces and have
placed reliance upon 'Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab'
(1980) 2 SCC 565; 'State of A.P. vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu' (1987) 8
7 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 09-09-2020 22:21:38 :::
CRM-M No.26304 of 2020 8
SCC 104; 'Union of India vs. PadamNarain Aggarwal' 2008 (13)
SCC 305; 'Directorate of Enforcement vs. P.V. Prabhakar Rao'
(1997) 6 SCC 647; 'State of Gujarat vs. Narendra K. Amin' (2008) 13
SCC 594; 'Narendra K. Amin vs. State of Gujarat' (2008) 13 SCC
584; 'Maruti Nivrutti Navale vs. State of Maharashtra' (2012) 9 SCC
235; 'Sanjeev R. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat' R/CRM
Misc.No.23368/2018; 'Sanjeev R. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat' Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
State Of Gujarat vs Gadhavi Maheshsinh Bhupendrasinh on 13 October, 2020
15.5 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of A.P.
Vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 104, has
observed as follows:
Mohammed Aslam Son Of Abdul Rashid vs Union Of India on 1 February, 2021
12. State Vs. Bimal Krishna Kandu (1997) 8 SCC 104;
Sudhir vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2015
In State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and another3,
which relates to offences punishable under Sections 420, 468
and 406 IPC arisen out of leakage of question paper in respect of
examination conducted by Public Service Commission, this
Court has made following observations: -
Sri Rapuru Koteswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 May, 2022
7. Further, learned Senior counsel has relied upon another
decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court reported in THE STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. BIMAL KRISHNA KUNDU & ANR.2,
wherein it was held that "in Section 438 of the Code on the ground
that the offences involved are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life."