Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 246 (3.59 seconds)
Documents citing Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985

Vinod Bihari Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 February, 2023

29. While considering the guidelines regarding grant of anticipatory bail the Supreme Court in case of Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others27 discussed about the judgement of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab28 and observed that a caution was voiced in the evaluation of consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, and more than that, there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it: Relevant paragraph of said judgement in Pokar Ram (supra) reads thus:
Allahabad High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 4 - M R Chauhan - Full Document

Kashi Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 3 December, 1987

15. The learned Sessions Judge, while considering the discrepancy with regard to the weapon of offence and injuries on the person of the accused-non-petitioner No. 2, allowed the bail application. But, I am of the opinion that this was not correct appraoch while deciding the bail application under Section 438, Cr.PC because, according to the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. These situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the Courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. This was not a case where the accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive or that the object is to injure and humiliate the non-petitioner No. 2 by having him arrested. And.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Parminder Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 February, 2023

28. While considering the guidelines regarding grant of anticipatory bail Supreme Court in case of Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others22 discussed about the judgement of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab23 and observed that a caution was voiced in the evaluation of consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, and more than that there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it: Relevant paragraph of said judgement in Pokar Ram (supra) reads thus:
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - M R Chauhan - Full Document

Kashi Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 3 December, 1987

16. The learned Sessions Judge, while considering the discrepancy with regard to the weapon of offence and injuries on the person of the accused-non-petitioner No. 2, allowed the bail application. But, I am of the opinion that this was not correct approach while deciding the bail application under Section 438, Cr.PC because, according to the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the relevant considerations governing the Court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. These situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on 'which the Courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other are substantially different from each other. This was not a case where the accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from ulterior motive or that the object is to injure and humiliate the non-petitioner No. 2 by having him arrested And, these are the main guidelines for considering and deciding the bail application under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Umesh Kumar Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 August, 2024

It stated that in Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597, while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed that the relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. It further stated that the judgement of the Constitution Bench inGurbaksh Singh Sibbiavs.State of Punjab(1980) 2 SCC 565 in para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly drew the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest during investigation. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It was observed that "it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond". Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are "the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and 'the larger interests of the public or the State', are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail".
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - K Pahal - Full Document

Puthika Bhanu Chander vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 2024

"8. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has stated in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(1985) 2 SCC 597 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 297 : AIR 1985 SC 969] : (SCC p. 600, para 5) "5. Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal." 9.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushma vs State Nct Of Delhi on 27 September, 2024

"8. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has stated in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(1985) 2 SCC 597 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 297 : AIR 1985 SC 969] : (SCC p. 600, para 5) "5. Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal."
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahil vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 November, 2024

"8. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has stated in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(1985) 2 SCC 597 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 297 : AIR 1985 SC 969] : (SCC p. 600, para 5) "5. Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal."
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next