Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 176 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Ravindra Saxena vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2009

Sri Sudip Sen vs The State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 2010

In Ravindra Sexena's case (supra) the Supreme Court found that the High Court of Rajasthan did not consider the application for anticipatory bail in proper perspective and it was rejected without considering the case of the appellant solely on the ground that the challan had then been presented and, therefore, the 48 Supreme Court by referring to a decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) held that the High Court erred in not considering the application for pre-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 38 - Cited by 12 - J N Patel - Full Document

Dipen Chawda vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2026

51. The defence plea of parity is misconceived. Grant of bail to another accused does not automatically entitle every co-accused to bail. Parity applies only when roles are identical. The material against the 22 present applicant shows his operational role in the cash movement chain. Bail granted to other accused persons does not dilute the seriousness of evidence against the applicant. The Apex Court in Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 SCC 684, has clarified that parity cannot be claimed when roles and evidence differ.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tsewang Thinles Alias Gupta vs Ut Of Ladakh on 24 November, 2022

(ix) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2907/2021 (Jude Lobo vs. State, NCT of Delhi), (x) Criminal Appeal No. 2406/2009 (Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan), (xi) Criminal Petition No. 2727/2018 (Dr. Ankit Gautam vs. State of Karnataka), (xii) Criminal Appeal No. 2271/2010 (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) & (xiii) Bail Application No. 76/2021 (Basit Bashir Dar vs. UT of J & K).
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - M Lal - Full Document

Sri Sudip Sen vs The State Of West Bengal on 4 August, 2010

We have given our anxious consideration and having examined the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of (1) 12 Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. The State of Punjab AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632, (2) Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 C.Cr.LR (Supreme Court) 130, (3) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu AIR 2005 Supreme Court 921, (4) Ravindra Saxena vs. The State of Rajasthan 2010(1) SCC (Cri) 884, concur with the views expressed by their Lordships while making the reference.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J N Patel - Full Document

Rekha Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 4 February, 2011

3. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the said order dated 4.2.2010 is absolutely against the law and per incurium and it has to be ignored while considering this second anticipatory bail application. He relied on (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 684 (Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan) 2010 (8) Supreme 353 (Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others and submitted that this second anticipatory bail application is maintainable.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R K Merathia - Full Document

Rajnikant vs State on 27 April, 2010

4. I have heard Mr PM Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and Mr DC Sejpal, learned APP for the State at length and in great detail. I have considered the role attributed to the applicants as reflected in the FIR, police papers, statement of witnesses and other material which is produced for my perusal. Since the application preferred by the applicants is under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they are seeking anticipatory bail, it would not be proper to discuss the evidence in detail in the case as the investigation in the matter is also not over. I have also considered the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants in the case of Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 684 and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court. However, considering the material on record of the case and the prima facie involvement of the applicants in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC, I am of the view that the applicants are not entitled to claim the discretionary relief as prayed for in the application. Even if the payment is made of the huge amount of Rs.76,062/-, the applicants cannot wriggle out on the plea that since the amount in question is already paid, they should be granted anticipatory bail because it is not in dispute that the complaint filed is not frivolous, nor is it the case of the applicants that they are falsely implicated in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of the IPC. Thus, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record of the case which is perused by me, I am of the view that no discretionary relief be granted to the applicants as prayed for in the application while exercising the powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are of an extraordinary nature and can be exercised in a very rare and exceptional circumstances.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H B Antani - Full Document

Saurabh S/O Shri Pramod vs The State Of Rajasthan on 27 August, 2021

In "Ravindra Saxena vs State of Rajasthan" (supra) the Apex Court has held that when the application is made to the High Court or Court of Sessions it must apply its own mind on the question and decide when the case is made out for granting such relief. Anticipatory bail should not be denied merely because the allegation pertains to cheating or forgery of a valuable security.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next