Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 482 (1.73 seconds)
Documents citing Hamida vs Rashid @ Rasheed & Ors on 27 April, 2007

Damru Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2014

6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and submitted that on the date on which the petitioner appeared before the learned CJM, the case was registered under sections 337/338/325 of the Indian Penal Code; since the offences alleged were bailable, the court had no option, but to grant bail. But on the very same day ( 19.7.2007) itself, the informant succumbed to his injuries and very promptly, on the next day, the investigating officer filed petition for cancellation of bail and a separate petition to add section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The CJM has rightly directed the petitioner to file show cause and after granting hearing to the parties, bail granted 3 to the petitioner was cancelled due to change in the circumstances. There is no illegality in the impugned orders and the judgments referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts and circumstances appearing in the case at hand; rather, the facts of the present case are fully covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Hamida Vs. Rashid (2008 (1) SCC 474) (Supra ).
Jharkhand High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - D N Upadhyay - Full Document

Sonu Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2019

22. One of the judgments, which needs to be noticed in the above reference is Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed (supra). In the above case, the accused was granted bail for offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. The victim succumbed to his injuries in the night intervening 16.06.2005 and 17.06.2005. The offence thereafter was converted into Section 304 IPC. An application was filed in the High Court by the accused to permit them to remain on same bail even after conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 IPC, which was allowed by the High Court. The complainant filed an appeal by special leave in this Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to be taken into custody with liberty to apply for bail for the offences for which he was charged before proper Court in accordance with law. This Court further held that accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. This Court laid down following in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Raj Kishor Mishra And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 15 October, 2020

22. One of the judgments, which needs to be noticed in the above reference is Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed (supra). In the above case, the accused was granted bail for offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. The victim succumbed to his injuries in the night intervening 16.06.2005 and 17.06.2005. The offence thereafter was converted into Section 304 IPC. An application was filed in the High Court by the accused to permit them to remain on same bail even after conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 IPC, which was allowed by the High Court. The complainant filed an appeal by special leave in this Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to be taken into custody with liberty to apply for bail for the offences for which he was charged before proper Court in accordance with law. This Court further held that accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. This Court laid down following in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Sureshpal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 December, 2019

22. One of the judgments, which needs to be noticed in the above reference is Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed (supra). In the above case, the accused was granted bail for offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. The victim succumbed to his injuries in the night intervening 16.06.2005 and 17.06.2005. The offence thereafter was converted into Section 304 IPC. An application was filed in the High Court by the accused to permit them to remain on same bail even after conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 IPC, which was allowed by the High Court. The complainant filed an appeal by special leave in this Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to be taken into custody with liberty to apply for bail for the offences for which he was charged before proper Court in accordance with law. This Court further held that accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. This Court laid down following in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Pradeep Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2019

22. One of the judgments, which needs to be noticed in the above reference is Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed and Others (supra). In the above case, the 22 accused was granted bail for offences under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC. The victim succumbed to his injuries in the night intervening 16.06.2005 and 17.06.2005. The offence thereafter was converted into Section 304 IPC. An application was filed in the High Court by the accused to permit them to remain on same bail even after conversion of the offence into one under Section 304 IPC, which was allowed by the High Court. The complainant filed an appeal by special leave in this Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and directed the accused to be taken into custody with liberty to apply for bail for the offences for which he was charged before proper Court in accordance with law. This Court further held that accused could apply for bail afresh after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC. This Court laid down following in paragraph Nos. 10, 11 and 12:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 63 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Pradeep Ram @ Pradeep Verma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 September, 2018

He submits that so far as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the NIA is concerned being "Bhadrersh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr." reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 and "Hamida Vs. Rashid alias Rasheed & Others" reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474, none of the said judgments are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned senior counsel while concluding his argument has also referred to Section 43 (D) (5) of the UAP Act and has stated that intent of the legislature has to be firstly seen.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

Raj Kumar Agrawal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Ahd ... on 18 June, 2013

Similar view seems to have been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Hamida vs Rashid @ Rasheed and others (supra). In that case FIR was registered under Section 324, 352 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, though according to informant, it should have been registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was granted bail. During investigation, the injured died and the case was registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon an application was filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein to direct the C.B.I to permit them to remain on the same bail. Even after conversion of the offence of the offence into one under Section 304 of the Indian penal Code, that prayer was allowed by the High Court and when the matter was challenged before the Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the order passed by the High Court after holding that such kind of order never warrants to be passed in an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that event, the Hon'ble Supreme passed an order for taking the accused into custody forthwith but at the same time, it was observed that the accused would be at liberty to apply for bail for the offences for which they are charged before the appropriate court in accordance with law.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next