Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.59 seconds)
Sandesh @ Papya Ananta Phadke And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 2023 cites

U.O.I. Thr. Cbi vs Nirala Yadav@Raja Ram Yadav@Deepak ... on 30 June, 2014

We are concerned with Conclusion (3) which reads as follows: (Nirala Yadav case, SCC p. 472, para 24) "13.(3) On the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as b the case may be, an indefeasible right accrues in favour of the accused for being released on bail on account of default by the investigating agency in the completion of the investigation within the period prescribed and the accused is entitled to 1 (2017) 15 SCC 67 7/21 Darshan Patil BA-1061-23.odt be released on bail, if he is prepared to and furnishes the bail as directed by the Magistrate.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 159 - D Misra - Full Document

Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 March, 2001

38. This Court also dealt with the decision rendered in Sanjay Dutt and noted that the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench is to the effect that if the charge-sheet is not filed and the right for "default bail" has ripened into the status of indefeasibility, it cannot be frustrated by the prosecution on any pretext. The accused can avail his liberty by filing an application stating that the statutory period for filing the charge-sheet or challan has expired and the same has not yet been filed and therefore the indefeasible right has accrued in his or her favour and further the accused is prepared to furnish the bail bond.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 324 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Mohammed Azharuddin Mazhar @ Iqbal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 August, 2021

39. This Court also noted that apart from the possibility of the prosecution frustrating the indefeasible right, there are occasions when even the court frustrates the indefeasible right. Reference was made to Mohd. Iqbal Madar Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra wherein it was observed that some courts keep the application for "default bail" pending for some days so that in the meantime a charge- sheet is submitted. While such a practice both on the part of the prosecution as well as some courts must be very strongly and vehemently discouraged, we reiterate that no subterfuge should be resorted to, to defeat the indefeasible right of the accused for "default bail" during the interregnum when the statutory period for filing the charge-sheet or challan expires and the submission of the charge-sheet or challan in court.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 16 - S K Shinde - Full Document

Deepak Satyavan Kudalkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 November, 2021

19. It is pertinent to note that the Special Judge had rejected the application for default bail of accused Nos. 1 to 16 which includes the present applicants. However, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 approached this court for default bail vide Bail Application No. 1136 of 2023. This court by order dated 13/06/2023 allowed the application of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Enforcement Directorate, 18/21 Darshan Patil BA-1061-23.odt Government of India Vs. Kapil Wadhawan2 and in view of the law laid down by this court, in the case of Deepak Satyavan Kudalkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra 3. This court observed that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 exercised their right to ask for a default bail on 04/03/2023 after the period for filing the chargesheet even after the extension expired on 03/03/2023.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - N W Sambre - Full Document
1