Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 363 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing C.B.I vs V.Vijay Sai Reddy on 9 May, 2013

Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 28 February, 2019

In the said facts finding enquiry report it was mentioned at serial No.3 that the missing files CBI Vs. S.V. Singh and others for the loss of which the petitioner was held responsible and the present FIR was registered against him and his services were already terminated. In the concluding part of this enquiry only a warning was issued to other officials of the Court, i..e Ranjore Singh, Reader; Harish Pal, Ahlmad; Sonia Bhatia, Additional Ahlmad and Ms. Bharti Luthra, Ahlmad and they were warned to remain careful in future as 10 more files which were missing and assigned to these employees were also recovered. The counsel for the petitioner on the basis of these two enquiries has submitted that nothing has come on record that at any point of time the petitioner was incharge of the said almirah, from which ten other files were recovered and the other officials who were held responsible for the same, were only given a warning, whereas against the petitioner, the present FIR was registered.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A S Sangwan - Full Document

Niranjan Das vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 10 March, 2026

92. It is trite law that parity cannot be claimed in a mechanical or automatic manner and the Court, while considering a plea of parity, is required to examine the individual role attributed to the accused, the nature of allegations against him, and the material available on record. Parity cannot be invoked merely on the ground that certain other accused persons have not been arrested or have been granted bail. The Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 has categorically held that the non-arrest of other accused persons cannot by itself constitute a valid ground for granting bail to another accused, particularly when the role attributed to such accused stands on a different footing. The principle of parity applies only where the role, circumstances and allegations against the accused seeking bail are substantially similar to those of the co- accused who have been granted bail.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.B.I., Eou-Iv, New Delhi vs Dinesh Kumar Singh on 15 July, 2014

The decision in case of CBI Vs. V.V. Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 SCC Pg. 452 refers to the grant of bail on reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence. Applying the said principle and as concluded herein above the grounds for believing the claim of party as recorded by the learned Judge is clearly non-existent. There is another fact which deserves mention that the learned counsel have urged that there was no opposition or objection to the hearing of the three bail applications by the learned Judge, that the applicant Ram Prasad Jaiswal was entitled for bail on medical grounds, that the CBI has failed to file any application for cancelling the bail of the other co-accused and finally the applicants are entitled to be otherwise released on bail. The same have been answered hereinabove but it would be apt to mention that the court does not proceed merely because there is no effective opposition. It is here that one has to keep in mind what Lord Justice Ackner said "Convenience and justice are often not on speaking terms" (Observer dated 25.10.1981).
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - A P Sahi - Full Document

Bail App No. 186/2022 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 16 June, 2022

In [Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 Scale 15], relied by Ld. Counsel for CBI, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that while granting bail court has to keep in mind various factors for grant or refusal of bail viz; nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment, character of accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with and larger interest of public/state and other similar considerations. To my considered view, the observations of the Apex Court would be strictly followed in the case in hand.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Lal - Full Document

Suresh Narain Bhatnagar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 15 June, 2018

10. In reply to the Para 10, it is submitted that the reply to the Para 4 above may be read as part of reply to this Para. Further, the observation of this Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8765/2003 vide order dt. 15.10.2004 are not applicable herein as the case is still under investigation and at the time of consideration of the bail application, it is already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay (2013) 7 SCC 452 that it is not expected, at stage of bail, to have evidence establishing guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence". Further. this is not a complaint case where the Court of Spl. Judge had ordered investigation U/sec.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Sajjad Ahmed S/O Shams-Ud-Din Bhat vs Central Bureau Of Investigations ... on 31 March, 2023

In (2013) 7 Scale 15 (Central Bureau of Investigation vs V. Vijay Sai Reddy), relied by Ld. Counsel for CBI, Hon‟ble Supreme Court held, that while granting bail court has to keep in mind various factors for grant or refusal of bail viz; nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment, character of accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with and larger interest of public/state and other similar considerations. To my considered view, the observations of the Apex Court would be strictly followed in the case in hand.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Lal - Full Document

Suresh Narain Bhatnagar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 15 June, 2018

10. In reply to the Para 10, it is submitted that the reply to the Para 4 above may be read as part of reply to this Para. Further, the observation of this Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8765/2003 vide order dt. 15.10.2004 are not applicable herein as the case is still under investigation and at the time of consideration of the bail application, it is already been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay (2013) 7 SCC 452 that it is not expected, at stage of bail, to have evidence establishing guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence". Further. this is not a complaint case where the Court of Spl. Judge had ordered investigation U/sec.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Bail App No. 400/2021/ Crlm No. 2316/202 vs Union Territory Of J&K Through Incharge ... on 27 December, 2021

In [Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 Scale 15], relied by Ld. Counsel for CBI, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, that while granting bail court has to keep in mind various factors for grant or refusal of bail viz; nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment, character of accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tempered with and larger interest of public/state and other similar considerations. To my 23 Bail App Nos. 399 & 400 of 2021 considered view, the observations of the Apex Court would be strictly followed in the case in hand.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next