Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)

Asa Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 31 January, 1972

8. While interpreting the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. relying upon the cases of Udai Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 452 and Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana , it has been held in the case of Asa Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), that bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed after the filing of challan if such application was not filed before filing of challan. The accused gets an indefeasible right to get bail if he makes a bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. before the challan is put up. Subsequent filing of challan during pendency of the bail application will not extinguish indefeasible right of the accused to get bail. But if bail application is moved after filing of challan then the right of the accused to invoke the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was not in subsistence and if the bail was granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. after filing of the challan, the principles applicable for cancellation of bail could not be attracted and the bail was liable to be recalled because the right to grant of bail provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was not an indefeasible right that could not be taken away.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Sanjay Dutt vs State Through C.B.I. Bombay on 9 September, 1994

10. A Division Bench of this Court has also held in Bhinya Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra), following the ratio propounded in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (supra) that the right granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of bail does not survive or remain enforceable after the challan is filed. It is only available in the intervening period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 134 - Full Document

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur And Others Etc. ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 July, 1994

10. A Division Bench of this Court has also held in Bhinya Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra), following the ratio propounded in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (supra) that the right granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of bail does not survive or remain enforceable after the challan is filed. It is only available in the intervening period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 328 - Full Document

Gurbax Singh And Atumal Alias Atma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Others, Etc. on 29 July, 1991

11. An identical question arose in the case of Atma Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra), as to whether right of the accused to be released on bail under Section 167(2) proviso (a) Cr.P.C. survives even after filing of challan after expiry of 90 days and it was held that the accused was not entitled to bail in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 36 - Full Document
1   2 Next