Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing C.K.Boban vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2005

Amarnath Vyas vs State Of A.P. on 19 December, 2006

10. The other decision, which is sought to be relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, is rendered by learned single Judge of Kerala High Court in C.K. Boban v. Union of India 2005 Cri LJ 2801. That judgment came to be rendered under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The punishment prescribed under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act is imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Repelling the contention that the expression 'for a term which may extend to three years' would mean that the sentence of imprisonment that could be awarded for a period of less than three years, learned single Judge was of the view that the expression 'three years and upwards' would definitely include an offence punishable for a 'term upto three years' and the offence enjoined under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act would come within the second category of classification of Part-II of the Schedule.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Mandal vs State on 28 September, 2016

2. The submissions of leaned counsel for the petitioner are twofold, firstly that as per the allegations in the FIR, ingredients for offences as alleged have not been made out including the one punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and even if made out, the same being bailable offences, the petitioner is required to be released on bail on his furnishing surety bond. To press the first contention, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even as per the allegations of the prosecutrix, the petitioner had blocked phone number of the prosecutrix, thus it was the prosecutrix who was after the petitioner and not vice-versa. Further even taking the allegations on the face of it, no act has been attributed to the petitioner with BAIL APPLN. 1763/2016 Page 1 of 13 sexual overtones which is an essential ingredient for the offences alleged. With regard to the second contention, referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (2001) 5 SCC 34 Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and (2007) 14 SCC 325 Avinash Bhosale Vs. Union of India & Anr. and of the High Courts reported as 2005 (2) KLJ 115 C.K. Boban Vs. The Union of India, 2007 Crl.L.J. 2025 Amarnath Vyas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and 2013(56) PTC 282 (Del) State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Naresh Kumar Garg it is stated that rest of the offences invoked against the petitioner are bailable and as per the law laid by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, since for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, the sentence provided is imprisonment upto 3 years, it is a bailable offence. Therefore, bail was required to be granted as of right to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - M Gupta - Full Document
1