Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 53 (1.73 seconds)
Documents citing Nirbhay Singh And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 September, 1994

Akhalaq Ahmed F. Patel vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 March, 1998

The aforesaid observations leave no manner of doubt that the Sessioas Court as well as the High Court have powers to grant anticipatory bail even in cases where warrant has been issued by the Magistrate. The aforesaid view of the Andhra Pradesh Full Bench has been reiterated by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cose of Nirbhay Singh v. State of M. P. 1996 (1) Crimes 238 : (1995 Cri LJ 3317).
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Shivraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2014

Since the warrant of arrest has already been issued against the applicants by the trial Court, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of this Court in Nirbhay Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. (supra), the applicants are directed to surrender before the arresting officer, who is authorized to execute the warrant of arrest, within 15 days from today and the concerned arresting officer shall produce the applicants before the concerned trial Court on the same day in connection with Crime No. 113/2012 (S.T. No. 305/2012) registered at Police Station-Chhola Mandir, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and the concerned Court shall release the applicants on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of `30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the said Court, till the end of the trial.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Meraj Ali Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2015

Since warrant of arrest has already been issued by the trial Court against the applicant, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of this Court in Nirbhay Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. (supra), the applicant is directed to surrender before the arresting officer, who is authorized to execute the warrant of arrest and the concerned arresting officer shall immediately produce the applicant before the concerned trial Court in connection with Crime No. 102/2010 registered at Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Office, Bhopal for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467, 468, 109, 120-B of the IPC and the concerned Court shall release the applicant on bail on his furnishing the personal bond in a sum of `30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the said Court, till the end of criminal case arising out of Crime No. 102/2010.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sudhir Solanki vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, Chd on 8 January, 2021

25. The above view was reiterated by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as reported in Nirbhay Singh and another v. State of M.P., 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 197 (FB) : 1996(1) Crimes 238 (HC), "Section 438 speaks of a person having reason to believe that he may be arrested on an 'accusation'. There may be an accusation even before a case is registered by police. After the registration of the case, filing of the charge-sheet or filing of the 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 09-01-2021 20:17:47 ::: CRM-M-196-2021 (O&M) 8 complaint or taking cognizance or issuance of warrant, the accusation will to cease to be an accusation. At the later stage, there may be stronger accusation or more evidence. Nevertheless, the accusation survives or continues Section 438 speaks of apprehension and belief that he may be 'arrested'. There is no limitation in the language employed by the legislature indicating that the arrest contemplated is an arrest by the police of their own accord or that arrest by the police on a warrant issued by the Court will not attract Section 438. The language used is clear and unambiguous, namely, apprehension of 'arrest on an accusation'. Considering the legislative purpose underlying the provision and the clarity of the language used in the section we do not find any justification to import anything extraneous into the interpretation so as to restrict the scope or vitality of the provision. It is not as if circumstances justifying an application under Section 438 would disappear once a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence or even after he passes an order committing the case to the Sessions Court."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Sarin - Full Document

Rajbir Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) on 18 January, 2021

25. The above view was reiterated by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as reported in Nirbhay Singh and another v. State of M.P., 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 197 (FB) : 1996(1) Crimes 238 (HC), "Section 438 speaks of a person having reason to believe that he may be arrested on an 'accusation'. There may be an accusation even before a case is registered by police. After the registration of the case, filing of the charge-sheet or filing of the complaint or taking cognizance or issuance of warrant, the accusation will to cease to be an accusation. At the later stage, there may be 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2021 00:41:44 ::: CRM-M-2363-2021 (O&M) -8- stronger accusation or more evidence. Nevertheless, the accusation survives or continues Section 438 speaks of apprehension and belief that he may be 'arrested'. There is no limitation in the language employed by the legislature indicating that the arrest contemplated is an arrest by the police of their own accord or that arrest by the police on a warrant issued by the Court will not attract Section 438. The language used is clear and unambiguous, namely, apprehension of 'arrest on an accusation'. Considering the legislative purpose underlying the provision and the clarity of the language used in the section we do not find any justification to import anything extraneous into the interpretation so as to restrict the scope or vitality of the provision. It is not as if circumstances justifying an application under Section 438 would disappear once a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence or even after he passes an order committing the case to the Sessions Court."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Sarin - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next