Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)Section 496 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Mandar Deepak Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 July, 2022
6. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to
the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Criminal Appeal No. 442
of 2022) titled "Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and
another". It is stated that marriage was negotiated between the parties and as
would appear from a glance at the complaint both parties were ready and
willing to perform marriage, however, it was an intervening circumstance by
reason of which the marriage between the parties could not be performed. It
is submitted that age gap between the parties was the reason marriage
between the parties could not be solemnized and, therefore, no criminality
can be attached to the petitioner.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr on 18 January, 2005
7. Normally a second bail application should not be entertained by
the same Court and, that too, on merits of the matter. No doubt there is no
statutory bar in moving an application for bail or anticipatory bail but then
the Court is seriously required to see whether in the changed circumstance it
can modify its own order in the second/third bail application, because the
earlier dismissal of the bail application would be a relevant and material fact
[refer, "Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and
another" (2004) 7 SCC 528].
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
In "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab" reported in
(1980) 2 SCC 565, it has been held that section 438 (1) Cr.P.C
has to be read in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and no doubt section 438 Code of Civil Procedure which
was first introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 is
intended to save a person from unnecessary harassment and
humiliation on account of vengeful criminal proceeding
launched against him and the normal rule that bail not jail is
also applicable under section 438 Cr.P.C as also it is not
necessary that a person seeking anticipatory bail must make out
a case of extraordinary nature, but then, while entertaining an
application under section 438 Cr.P.C the Court is required to
carefully assess the materials brought on record.
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
G.R. Ananda Babu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 January, 2021
No. 213 of 2021 titled "G.R. Ananda Babu vs. The State of
Tamil Nadu and another", "Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan" (2010)
1 SCC 684 and an order passed by a Single Judge of Patna High Court in
3 A.B.A. No. 2181 of 2022
"Rahul Mazaffarpuri vs. The State of Bihar and another" 2014 SCC Online
Patna 25 to submit that there is no statutory bar in moving a second
anticipatory bail application and in appropriate cases the Court can examine
the matter on merits even in third round of litigation vide "Ravindra
Saxena". It is submitted that after rejection of the anticipatory bail application
by this Court and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3223 of 2020 by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court certain developments have taken place which are
required to be considered by this Court in this anticipatory bail application.