Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.11 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
State Of Kadugodi Police, Bangalore vs Gulzar Khan on 11 August, 1995
In support of this argument, he placed reliance on a decision in State by Kodugodi Police Station, Bangalore v Gulzar Khan, State of Karnataka v Narayanappa and Others and Hadiani Dei v State of Orissa and Others. In these cases, the Courts have held that the grant of bail is different from cancelling bail and these two matters will have to be considered and dealt with on a different basis. Very cogent and over-whelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. The grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner (these are only illustrative and not exhaustive). Satisfaction of the Court on the basis of material placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. As far as the principles enunciated regarding the cancellation of bail, there cannot be any quarrel. With these principles in mind, it is now necessary to consider the case on hand.
Aslam Babalal Desai vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1992
12. After hearing both the parties, the Court cancelled the order of granting hail in favour of those accused persons and they were taken into custody. In this case as stated earlier, the accused are in custody and they have not been released on bail. Therefore, the question of cancelling bail does not arise. On the other hand, the question is only in regard to the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Court below. It is held in a decision in Aslam Babalal Desai v State of
Maharashtra, that once an accused is released on bail under Section 167(2), he cannot be taken back into custody merely on filing of the charge sheet and there must exist special reasons for so doing.
Shankar Krishnasa Habib And Another vs State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 1991
15. The learned Counsel for the respondents further argued placing reliance on a decision in Shankar Krishnasa Habib and Another v State of Karnataka, wherein this Court has granted bail on the ground that no case was made out by the prosecution so as to connect the accused that they were in exclusive possession of ganja. That order came to be passed on the basis of the facts of the case and also on the question that the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. as it is not subject to the limitations mentioned under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. On the basis of it, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court cannot upset the order passed by the learned Court. For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents in this case.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hadiani Dei vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 14 September, 1993
In support of this argument, he placed reliance on a decision in State by Kodugodi Police Station, Bangalore v Gulzar Khan, State of Karnataka v Narayanappa and Others and Hadiani Dei v State of Orissa and Others. In these cases, the Courts have held that the grant of bail is different from cancelling bail and these two matters will have to be considered and dealt with on a different basis. Very cogent and over-whelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. The grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner (these are only illustrative and not exhaustive). Satisfaction of the Court on the basis of material placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. As far as the principles enunciated regarding the cancellation of bail, there cannot be any quarrel. With these principles in mind, it is now necessary to consider the case on hand.
State Of Karnataka vs Narayanappa on 1 February, 1991
In support of this argument, he placed reliance on a decision in State by Kodugodi Police Station, Bangalore v Gulzar Khan, State of Karnataka v Narayanappa and Others and Hadiani Dei v State of Orissa and Others. In these cases, the Courts have held that the grant of bail is different from cancelling bail and these two matters will have to be considered and dealt with on a different basis. Very cogent and over-whelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. The grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner (these are only illustrative and not exhaustive). Satisfaction of the Court on the basis of material placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. As far as the principles enunciated regarding the cancellation of bail, there cannot be any quarrel. With these principles in mind, it is now necessary to consider the case on hand.
1