Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Pradeep vs State Of U.P. on 19 October, 2023 cites

Dataram Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 2018

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 35378 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 July, 2022

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 131 - Cited by 19037 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 29 April, 1988

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant and upon perusal of record, evidence, accusations made, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of accused and coupled with the fact that similarly situate and circumstanced named and charge sheeted co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant could not point out any such distinguishing feature in the case of present applicant from other named/charge sheeted but bailed out co-accused, so as to distinguish the case of the present applicant from other named/charge sheeted co-accused and thereby deny him bail, the explained criminal history of the applicant, the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar and another (supra), the period of incarceration undergone the Police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicant, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the trial of the applicant has already commenced by means of Sessions Trial No. 413 of 2018 (State Vs. Rajeev and others), in spite of above fact that a period of more than 5 years and 4 months has rolled by from the date of submission of charge sheet, the trial has not yet concluded, the applicant who is in custody cannot be held responsible for delay in conclusion of trial, upto this stage all the prosecution witnesses of fact have not yet been examined, the right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused, vide judgement of the Supreme Court inA.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak (supra), therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to the present application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 1309 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1