Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1487 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Gurcharan Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Administration) on 6 December, 1977

Anil Mahajan vs Commissioner Of Customs & Anr. on 4 February, 2000

"Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima facie according to the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. This Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179; (1978 Crl. L.J. 129).
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 55 - C Joseph - Full Document

Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2023

"Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima facie according to the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. This Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179; (1978 Crl. L.J. 129)."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Garima Gupta vs State on 1 September, 2021

refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State AIR 1978 SC 179 observed that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure of the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Ashu Choudhary vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2023

"Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima facie according to the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. This Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179; (1978 Crl. L.J. 129)."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State By The Superintendent Of Police ... vs Mehboob Batcha And Others on 30 September, 1997

44. The learned counsel for the accused also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, which was already cited by the learned Public Prosecutor, and that was the decision reported in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179 at page 187 : (1978 Cri LJ 129 at p. 137) and in para 29, wherein it was stated that the two paramount considerations viz., the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution evidence relate to ensuring the fair trial of the case, and it is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others, and there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail, and the facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail. It follows from the above observation of the Supreme Court in para 29 of the decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 179 at page 187 : (1978 Cri LJ 129 at p. 137) that fleeing from justice and tampering with the witnesses are not the only consideration, or the sole consideration to cancel the bail, and the other factors must also be considered for granting bail as well as for the cancellation of bail.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Gopal Dhamani And Laxmi Narain Dhamani on 7 January, 1987

In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 at page 187, while confirming the order of the High Court cancelling the bail of the accused, this court observed that the only question which the court had to consider at that stage was whether 'there was a prima facie case made out, as alleged, on the statements of the witnesses and on the other materials', that 'there was a likelihood of the appellants tampering with the prosecution witnesses'. It is by the application of this test that we have come to the conclusion that the respondent's bail ought to be cancelled.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Gopal Dhamani on 7 January, 1987

In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1978 Cri LJ 129 at p. 137 : AIR 1978 SC 179 at p. 187 while confirming the order of the High Court cancelling the bail of the accused, this Court observed that the only question which the court had to consider at that stage was whether' 'there was prima facie case made out, as alleged, on the other materials, that there was a likelihood of the appellant tampering with the prosecution witnesses" It is by the application of this test that the respondent's bail ought to be cancelled.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamal K. Chadha vs B.S. Subhedar And Another on 28 July, 1980

16. There are no words in S. 439(2) of the new Code which limit or curtail the powers of the High Court or the Court of Session to cancel bail. S. 439(2) also does not give any guideline as to when bail could be cancelled. The Supreme Court has considered the provisions of Section 439(2) in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), . In that case on Sunder, who was said to be a notorious dacoit, was murdered and the Police Officers ranging from the Deputy Inspector General of Police down to some police constables were alleged to have been involved in the commission of murder of Sunder while he was in police custody. The appellants were released on bail and after the charge-sheet was filed, the State moved the High Court under Section 439(2) of the new Code for cancellation of bail and the bail bonds furnished by the appellants were cancelled. The appellants moved the Supreme Court against that order. After considering the provisions of S. 437 of the new Code and the provisions in regard to the non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the Supreme Court proceeded to consider the non-bailable offences in other cases and it was observed at page 135 (of Cri LJ) : (at p. 185 of AIR) :-
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next