Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing R.K.Krishna Kumar Etc. Etc., Sayeed ... vs State Of Assam & Ors on 3 December, 1997

P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019

In R.K. Krishna Kumar v. State of Assam and others (1998) 1 SCC 474, the Supreme Court received court diary maintained under Section 172 Cr.P.C. and perused the case diary to satisfy itself that the investigation has revealed that the company thereon has funded the organisation (ULFA) and that the appellants thereon had a role to play in it. While considering the question of arrest of five well known human rights activists, journalists, advocates and political workers, in Romila Thapar and 36 Others v. Union of India and Others (2018) 10 SCC 753, this Court perused the registers containing relevant documents and the case diary produced by the State of Maharashtra. However, the court avoided to dilate on the factual position emerging therefrom on the ground that any observation made thereon might cause prejudice to the accused or to the prosecution in any manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 2721 - R Banumathi - Full Document

S.Kannan vs State Rep. By on 21 February, 2011

In this case, as I have already stated, the judgements of this Court in R.Sarathkumar's case and Regupathi's case cited supra are not in consonance with the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above and also the provision contained in Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, with respect, I hold that these two judgements are per incuriam and so they are not binding precedents. The judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above only have declared the law binding all the courts through out the country. In such view of the matter, I hold that this petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Nagamuthu - Full Document

Suresh Babu vs State By on 4 March, 2016

21. There is no quarrel over the ratio decidendi made out in the above decision. But in the instant case, the facts itself would show that it is only civil in nature. Merely because the construction was not in accordance with the Vasthu, the defacto complainant had preferred a criminal complaint, after a delay of more than a year, though there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. Thus, the conduct of the complainant itself would show his malafide intention.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Kobad Gandhi vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2012

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited some other cases. They are Anup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2007 decided by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, State of Kerala Vs. Raneer, a decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India dated 3.1.2011, R.K.Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Assam and others, 1988 Crl. L.J. 848, S.N.Thapa, Addl.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shardul vs The State Of Karnataka, on 8 August, 2016

4. In fact the provisions of Section 438 for grant of anticipatory bail would not be applicable in case of a bailable offence. For this proposition, judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.K.KRISHNA KUMAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS (1998 (1) SCC 474) can be looked up. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that a direction if issued to the jurisdictional court to consider the application for bail on the same day in the event of same being filed by petitioners, it would suffice. It is made clear that in the event of such application being filed by petitioners, it shall be considered by the trial Court on same day and orders shall be passed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Anjan Das vs The State Of Assam on 10 October, 2019

It appears that the case involves offences under Section 224 IPC which is bailable. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of R.K. Krishnan & Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 474 that Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be applicable and does not arise for an offence which is bailable and the direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be issued only in respect of non-bailable offence.
Gauhati High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document
1