Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 112 (2.36 seconds)
Documents citing Chandrakeshwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu vs State Of Bihar on 30 September, 2016

Smt. Anasuya W/O. Kubendra Sopin vs Shri Mahantesh Rudrappa Sopin on 2 June, 2023

and Chandrakeshwar Prasad V. State of Bihar and another in Crl.A.No.932/2016 and State of Bihar Vs.Md.Shahabuddin in Criminal Appeal No.933/2016 and emphasise that if there is a suppression of material facts by accused in obtaining order of grant of bail. As such grant of bail can be re-considered by the Court and order for cancellation of bail.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V Srishananda - Full Document

State Of U.P. ( Major B.C. ) vs Gayatri Prasad Prajapati And Ors. on 26 May, 2017

He has also tried to distinguish the facts of the decision in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu vs. State of Bihar and others and State of Bihar vs. Md. Shahabuddin in Criminal Appeals no. 932 of 2016 and 933 of 2016 decided on 30.9.2016 to urge that the ratio of the said case would not be attracted on the facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 8 - A P Sahi - Full Document

Ketan Suresh Pawar vs Yuvraj Sandeepan Sawant on 27 August, 2019

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 443 to contend that in the said case it was held that the High Court had erred in granting bail to the respondent accused therein without taking into consideration the overall facts otherwise having a bearing on the exercise of its discretion on the issue. In the said case it is noticed that the F.I.R. had indicated that the accused is a habitual offender and he had already been awarded two sentences of life imprisonment and also named in several criminal cases. The accused therein was also a category­A history sheeter in view of his persistent criminal antecedents. In that background in the case which was being dealt with and the bail was under consideration, he had been charged with the offence of facilitating the murder of a witness in a case in which he was being tried. In that background, having considered all aspects this Court had arrived at such conclusion. Needless to mention, in a matter SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019 Page 10 of 11 relating to consideration of a bail application the facts of each case will have to be weighed on its own merits keeping in view the principles for grant of bail, while exercising the discretion available to the Court. In that background, in the instant case, for the reasons stated above the discretion as exercised by the High Court cannot be termed as erroneous.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Kumar Rai vs State Of U.P. on 15 November, 2019

"9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad @ Chandu Babu & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 443 to contend that in the said case it was held that the High Court had erred in granting bail to the respondent accused therein without taking into consideration the overall facts otherwise having a bearing on the exercise of its discretion on the issue. In the said case it is noticed that the F.I.R. had indicated that the accused is a habitual offender and he had already been awarded two sentences of life imprisonment and also named in several criminal cases. The accused therein was also a category-A history sheeter in view of his persistent criminal antecedents. In that background in the case which was being dealt with and the bail was under consideration, he had been charged with the offence of facilitating the murder of a witness in a case in which he was being tried. In that background, having considered all aspects this Court had arrived at such conclusion. Needless to mention, in a matter SLP(Crl) No.4158/2019 relating to consideration of a bail application the facts of each case will have to be weighed on its own merits keeping in view the principles for grant of bail, while exercising the discretion available to the Court. In that background, in the instant case, for the reasons stated above the discretion as exercised by the High Court cannot be termed as erroneous. "
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly vs The State Of Kerala on 20 March, 2020

[See State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21], Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70] and Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 3 SCC 775]] The decision in Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu v. State of Bihar [(2016) 9 SCC 443) is also relied on by the learned learned public prosecutor to assert his argument that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail during trial of the case where the settled position that applying discretion by the court in granting bail, must be in a judicious manner not as a matter of course, has reiterated.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - V Shircy - Full Document

Jollyamma Joseph vs Unknown on 14 August, 2020

6. The learned public prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner committed six murder. The public prosecutor also submitted that the method used by the accused in all the cases are similar. The public prosecutor submitted that, as far as the present case is concerned, final report is already filed. The public prosecutor submitted that, the prosecution could prove the case before the trial court because there are strong circumstantial evidence against the petitioner. The public prosecutor also relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004)7 SCC 528], Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director [(2007) 1 SCC 70] and Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu v. State of Bihar [(2016) 9 SCC 443]. The public B.A. NO.4628 OF 2020 10 prosecutor submitted that, the petitioner is not entitled bail in this case on several grounds. The public prosecutor submitted that, considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, granting of bail in this case will be against the principles laid down by the Apex Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - P V Kunhikrishnan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next