Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17060 (2.98 seconds)
Documents citing P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019

Saumya Chaurasia vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 28 February, 2026

99. While the allegations pertain to economic offences of serious nature, it is equally well settled that gravity of accusation alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail, particularly when the investigation is substantially complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Reference in this regard may be made to P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 and Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Tuteja vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2026

78. Though the charge-sheet has been duly filed, the prosecution maintains that investigation remains ongoing, with no discernible timeline furnished for its culmination. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that post-charge-sheet prolongation of probe, absent compelling justification, erodes the very rationale of pre-trial detention (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 229). The absence of a definite closure horizon not only beclouds trial commencement but portends protracted proceedings, fraught with uncertainty Such investigative inertia amplifies the vice of extended incarceration, now exceeding [18 months], rendering continued deprivation of liberty manifestly unjust.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr Shivinder Mohan Singh vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 23 July, 2020

In such a case, where the _______________________________________________________________________ BAIL APPL. No. 1353/2020 Page 36 of 45 prosecution would turn mainly on documentary evidence, which has already been collected and the complaint has been filed, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant is judicial custody (cf. Sanjay Chandra and P Chidambaram, supra);
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 10 - A J Bhambani - Full Document

Saumya Chaurasia vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 February, 2026

63. The edifice of the prosecution case rests preponderantly if not exclusively upon: Digital communications (WhatsApp chats, emails); Documentary records (forged instruments, ledgers);Official files (misappropriated government records) and Electronic devices (seized mobiles, laptops)-- all of which have been meticulously inventoried and secured by the investigating agency, obviating any peril of dissipation. This precise scenario attracted the scrutiny of the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 337, yielding the authoritative pronouncement:
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Megala vs The State Represented By on 4 July, 2023

48. Further, the learned Solicitor General of India also relied upon P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement’s case (cited supra) and several other orders, whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the various other fora have, as a matter of fact, granted custody to the ________________ Page.No.153 of 166 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.1021 of 2023 Enforcement Directorate. Merely because the express provision to act as Station House Officer is absent, the same will not in any manner disentitle the Enforcement Directorate from asking for the custody. Therefore, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the respondents officers are entitled to ask for custody.
Madras High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next