Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 68 (0.60 seconds)Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 167 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 437 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of U. P vs Deoman Upadhyaya on 6 May, 1960
(8) The observations in Sibbia regarding “limited custody” or
“deemed custody” to facilitate the requirements of the
investigative authority, would be sufficient for the purpose of
fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in the event of recovery
of an article, or discovery of a fact, which is relatable to a
statement made during such event (i.e deemed custody). In
such event, there is no question (or necessity) of asking the
130
accused to separately surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia
(supra) had observed that “if and when the occasion arises, it
may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts
made in pursuance of information supplied by a person
released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court
in State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya.”
(9) It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the
court concerned, which grants anticipatory bail, for a
direction under Section 439 (2) to arrest the accused, in the
event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non
cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or
inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of
the investigation or trial, etc.
(10) The court referred to in para (9) above is the court which
grants anticipatory bail, in the first instance, according to
prevailing authorities.
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 December, 1995
It is submitted that therefore the extreme views on both
side in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) and Salauddin
Abdulsamad Shaikh (supra), to that limited extent, do not
21
consider the observations in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra),
in the correct light. It is submitted that in a case, with
justifiable reasons, to be recorded in writing, indicating
reasons to deviate from the “normal rule”, the anticipatory
bail can be granted for a limited time period, the life of which,
would extinguish accordingly.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
It is submitted that therefore the extreme views on both
side in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra) and Salauddin
Abdulsamad Shaikh (supra), to that limited extent, do not
21
consider the observations in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra),
in the correct light. It is submitted that in a case, with
justifiable reasons, to be recorded in writing, indicating
reasons to deviate from the “normal rule”, the anticipatory
bail can be granted for a limited time period, the life of which,
would extinguish accordingly.