Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.32 seconds)
Ami Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 14 September, 2020 cites

Joginder Kumar vs State Of U.P on 25 April, 1994

In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 4 SCC 260, a three-Judge bench of Supreme Court holds, (20). ...No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self- esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 5745 - S Mohan - Full Document

Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 23 March, 2009

(2). However, following the decision of this Court in the case of Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., we reiterate that a Court hearing a regular bail application has got inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. In our opinion, this is the proper view in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the life and liberty of every person.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 9870 - Full Document

Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi & Anr on 23 March, 2001

The observations of the Supreme Court [In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280] that generally speaking if the punishment prescribed is that of imprisonment for life or death penalty, and the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail, unless the matter is covered by the provisos attached to section 437 of the Code. Thus, merely because an offence is punishable when imprisonment for life, it does not follow a Magistrate would have no jurisdiction to grant bail, unless offence is also exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. This, implies that the Magistrate would be entitled to grant bail in cases triable by him even though punishment prescribed may extend to imprisonment for life.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 2535 - Full Document

Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 27 March, 2014

In Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623, Supreme Court holds, ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2020 20:19:05 :::HCHP 14 (2). In the impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has opined that when the Appellant's plea to surrender before the Court is accepted and he is assumed to be in its custody, the police would be deprived of getting his custody, which is not .
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 504 - V Sen - Full Document

Km. Hema Mishra vs State Of Up & Ors on 16 January, 2014

In Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 4 SCC 453, Supreme Court of India holds, (21). I may, however, point out that there is unanimity in the view that in spite of the fact that Section 438 has been specifically omitted and made inapplicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, still a party aggrieved can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being extraordinary jurisdiction and the vastness of the powers naturally impose considerable responsibility in its application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 238 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next