Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Sri H D Kumaraswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2012 cites

Venkatachalaiah And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka, By Kadugodi Police ... on 22 July, 2003

18) In the case of VENKATACHALAIAH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADUGODI POLICE, BANGALORE, reported in ILR 2003 KAR 3985, this Court has held that, the apprehension of the applicant becomes certain that he would be arrested once a charge sheet is filed or warrant is issued by the Magistrate. Therefore, filing of a charge sheet and issuance of warrant are certainly the grounds which make the person not only to believe that he would be arrested, but also he can move the Courts under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that filing of the charge sheet and the jurisdictional Court taking cognizance thereon are no grounds to hold that the Court has no power to grant the relief of anticipatory bail. No doubt, the learned Special Judge after taking cognizance of the 24 offences alleged in the charge sheet, directed issue of summons to the petitioner and other accused persons and not warrant. It is necessary to note here that the order taking cognizance and issuing summons came to be passed on 21.04.2012, while this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail on the previous day, namely on 20.04.2012. Pursuant to the order of interim anticipatory bail granted by this Court, the petitioner has executed self-bond and also furnished surety, which has been accepted by the learned Special Judge. Even in a case where the jurisdictional Court orders issue of summons in respect of bailable or non-bailable offences, the accused persons, upon appearing before the Court pursuant to such summons, will have to seek bail, if he is already not on bail. Even at that stage, the jurisdictional Court has to decide whether the accused persons are entitled to bail or not, and if prayer for bail is rejected, such person could be taken to custody. Therefore, mere appearance of the petitioner before the 25 learned Special Judge pursuant to the summons issued and execution of the self-bond as well as furnishing of surety as per the terms of interim anticipatory bail, in my opinion, has not rendered the prayer sought in this petition infructuous.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980

27) In Gurbaksh Sing Sibbia's case referred to supra, which is followed in Mhetre's case, the constitution bench of the Apex Court has held that it is 36 not proper to hold that in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption at the higher rungs of executive and political power the discretion under Section 438 of the Code should not be exercised and at that stage it is not possible for the court to assess blatantness of Corruption. It is further held there in that, it is also not possible to hold that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless it is alleged and shown that the proposed accusations are mala fide. In the case on hand the question as to whether there was any conspiracy among the accused and in furtherance of such conspiracy, the order of de-notification was passed and whether the petitioner has gained any pecuniary advantage for the same, are all required to be established at the trial, and those aspects cannot be assessed at this stage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 8067 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December, 2010

29) In the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the interim anticipatory bail 38 granted to the petitioner deserves to be made absolute. It is necessary to note here that in Mhetre's case (supra) the Apex Court has held that the order of anticipatory bail if granted should ordinarily be in force till the conclusion of the trial unless it is recalled for justifiable reasons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 21316 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1