Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.32 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Prisons Act, 1894
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi & Anr on 23 March, 2001
In Prahlad Singh
Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for
bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations.
Dataram Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 2018
In
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held
that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the
matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously,
compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought
not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory.
Vikram Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 25 August, 2020
23. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this
case, the petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and the residence of the
victim and shall also not enter within a radius of one kilometer from the victim's home
till the recording of the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial.
This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to
incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to
Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.)
Aparna Bhat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2021
458); and Aparna
Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.
Maulana Mohd.Amir Rashadi vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 16 January, 2012
In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble
Supreme Court holds,
[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is
a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also
not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of
proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the
Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has
been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing
away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.