Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
Dhan Singh S/O Shiv Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 June, 2019 cites

Santu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2014

APPEALS-580-2016-581-2016-622-2016-623-2016-J.doc 6 J. K. International vs. State, Govt. (2001) 3 SCC 462 of NCT of Delhi and Ors. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 7 Santu Mahto vs. State of Jharkhand AIR 2014 Jhar 108 by Jharkhand High Court 8 Mehboob Ali and Ors. vs. State of (2016) 4 SCC 640 Rajasthan by the Hon'ble Supreme Court With the aid of these judgments, it is argued that the intervenor, being father of the person who died in the bomb blast, has locus to participate in the proceeding. The learned senior counsel further argued that it is settled law that material collected by the investigating agency in respect of accusations leveled against accused persons must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disapproved by other evidence and by virtue of such provision in Section 41D of the U.A.(P) Act, appellants herein are not entitled to be released on bail. Similarly, it is also urged that confessional statement of appellants/accused persons resulted in discovery of fact and this evidence constitute reasonable ground for believing that allegations against appellants/accused persons are prima facie true.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 9 - A K Singh - Full Document

Union Of India vs Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari on 14 September, 2007

"78 The expression, "reasonable ground", means something more than prima facie ground, which contemplates a substantially probable case for believing that the accused is guilty of the avk 46/84 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2019 03:31:08 ::: APPEALS-580-2016-581-2016-622-2016-623-2016-J.doc offence(s) alleged. Under Section 437 Cr.P.C. an accused is not to be released on bail if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under Section 437 Cr.P.C., the burden is on the prosecution to show existence of reasonable ground for believing that the accused is guilty. Hence, the presumption of innocence, which always runs in favour of the accused, is displaced only on the prosecution showing existence of reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty. [See Union of India v. Tharmssharasi, (1995) 4 SCC 190 and Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798.]"
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 2363 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Kishan Lal vs Dharmendra Bafna & Anr on 21 July, 2009

"37 This Court in K. Chandrasekhar Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 223; Ramachandran Vs. R. Udhayakumar & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 413; and Nirmal Singh Kahlon (supra); Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332; and Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna (2009) 7 SCC 685 has emphasised that where the court comes to the conclusion that there was a serious irregularity in the investigation that had taken place, the court may direct a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., even transferring the investigation to an independent agency, rather than directing a re-investigation. "Direction of a re-investigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior court would ordinarily issue such a direction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 201 - S B Sinha - Full Document

S.N. Sharma vs Bipen Kumar Tiwari And Ors on 10 March, 1970

APPEALS-580-2016-581-2016-622-2016-623-2016-J.doc "38 Unless an extra ordinary case of gross abuse of power is made out by those in charge of the investigation, the court should be quite loathe to interfere with the investigation, a field of activity reserved for the police and the executive. Thus, in case of a mala fide exercise of power by a police officer the court may interfere. (vide: S.N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors. AIR 1970 SC 786)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 180 - V Bhargava - Full Document
1