Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
P.Nalini vs The Superintendent Of Central Prison on 30 June, 2022 cites

P.K. Shaji @ Thammanam Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2005

(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];”
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 3829 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Shambhu Nath Singh And Ors on 29 March, 2001

“19. Accordingly, all the criminal appeals will stand allowed and the judgments in S.C.Nos.27 and 28 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, are set aside and both the sessions cases will stand remitted to the trial Court for a joint trial with a direction to the trial Court to conduct a joint trial of both the cases. Considering the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2006 and the trial was concluded ____________ Page 6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1071 of 2022 in the year 2020, we direct the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records from this Court. It is made clear that the accused persons shall co-operate with the trial Court in concluding the trial within the period fixed above. The accused persons are at liberty to move the trial Court seeking bail and the trial Court will consider the bail applications sympathetically in the light of the fact that a re-trial has been directed by this Court. If the trial Court finds that the appellants adopt dilatory tactics, it will be open to the trial Court to ensure their presence by recalling the bail orders and remanding them to custody as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Shambhu Nath Singh reported in AIR 2001 SC 1403.” 2.13. It is the grievance of Muthuramalingam that, after his appeals were allowed by the Division Bench as stated above, he should have been released from custody and his further detention in the prison for these two cases, namely, Abiramam Police Station Crime Nos.53 of 2006 and 54 of 2006 is illegal and therefore, he has filed the present habeas corpus petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 605 - Full Document

Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Rahul Modi on 27 March, 2019

9. However, we pointed out to Mr.Thiruvadi Kumar that, Muthuramalingam is not in the prison now pursuant to an order passed either under section 167 or 309 IPC, but is in the prison as a convict prisoner, based on ____________ Page 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.(MD) No.1071 of 2022 the conviction warrant issued by the Trial Court for undergoing the sentence imposed upon him on 23.09.2020. Therefore, on facts, Rahul Modi and Gautam Navlakha (supra) would not apply to the case on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 74 - Cited by 77 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1