Dolat Ram vs State Of Haryana on 24 November, 1994
In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, this
Court delineated broad, though not exhaustive, grounds
justifying cancellation of bail, including:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.28 seconds)Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia on 5 December, 2019
In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118, Justice
D.Y. Chandrachud explained:
Jagjeet Singh vs Ashish Mishra @ Monu on 18 April, 2022
In Jagjeet Singh (supra) (2022) 9 SCC 321, a
three-judge bench of this Court has observed that
rt
the power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. is of
wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court,
as the case may be, is bestowed with considerable
discretion while deciding an application for bail. But
this discretion is not unfettered. The order passed must
reflect the due application of the judicial mind
following well-established principles of law. In the
ordinary course, courts would be slow to interfere with
the order where bail has been granted by the courts
below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or
perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the
appellate Court would be well within its power to set
aside and cancel the bail.
Section 439 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ms. P vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2022
In P v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (supra) (2022), 15 SCR 211 decided by a
three-judge bench of this Court [authored by one of us
(Hima Kohli, J)] has spelt out the considerations that
must be weighed with the Court for interfering in an
order granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)
of the CrPC in the following words:
Ajwar vs Waseem on 14 October, 2022
In Ajwar (supra), this Court also examined the
considerations for setting aside bail orders in terms below:
Kashmira Singh vs Duman Singh on 9 July, 1996
mechanical manner without considering whether any
supervening circumstances have rendered it in
conducing to allow a fair trial. This proposition draws
support from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram
v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v.
Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and XXX v. State of
of
Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511.'
Chaman Lal vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 16 August, 2004
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the
criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the
accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused
being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
of
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the
accused on bail. (Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004)
7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias
rt
Pappu Yadav (supra) (2004) 7 SCC 528; Masroor v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State
of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v.
State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh
Kumar @ Polia (supra) (2020) 2 SCC 118.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr on 18 January, 2005
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the
criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the
accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused
being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
of
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the
accused on bail. (Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004)
7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias
rt
Pappu Yadav (supra) (2004) 7 SCC 528; Masroor v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State
of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v.
State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh
Kumar @ Polia (supra) (2020) 2 SCC 118.
Masroor vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 27 April, 2009
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the
criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of
tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the
accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused
being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the
of
possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the
courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the
accused on bail. (Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004)
7 SCC 525; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias
rt
Pappu Yadav (supra) (2004) 7 SCC 528; Masroor v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 286; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State
of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 16 SCC 508; Anil Kumar Yadav v.
State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129; Mahipal v. Rajesh
Kumar @ Polia (supra) (2020) 2 SCC 118.