Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Mitthu And Ors. vs The State on 28 November, 1975
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgments given in the cases of Mitthu v. State (supra), and Suresh Chand v. State (supra), should be treated as judgments per-incurium and it should be held that there is no contrary view on the issue and this Second Bail Application should be treated as maintainable.
Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994
He submits that question involved in the present matter is different than the question decided in the case of Suresh Chand v. State (supra).
Ram Gopal vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 November, 1971
He submits that in the case of Mitthu v. State (supra), the earlier judgment of this Court given in the case of Ram Gopal v. State (supra), was not considered, therefore, it could be considered as judgment per incurium.
Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia & Another vs The State Of Bombay on 8 October, 1957
23. The aforesaid discussion clearly reveals that all three judgments by learned Single Judges in the case of Ramgopal v. State (supra), Babulal v. Stale (supra), and Vishnunath Mathur v. State (supra), have held that subsequent or Second Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable on new facts, changed circumstances or medical ground whereas, in other two cases namely, Mitthu v. State (supra), and Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra), both by learned Single Judge, it has been has held that the Second Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. are not only exercised by the High Court but, by the Court of Sessions also and in view of the fact that there are two contrary view on the point and there is no judgment by the Division Bench or Larger Bench of this Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, I think fit and proper that this question should be decided by a Division Bench or by a Larger Bench.
Babulal Parate vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 January, 1961
22. The case of Mitthu v. State (supra), was considered in subsequent judgments namely Babulal v. State (supra), and Vishnu Nath Mathur v. State (supra), and it was held that the case of Mitthu v. State (supra), was decided on the basis of facts of that particular case.
Daun Alias Biswajit Pattnaik, Mahia ... vs State Of Orissa on 6 February, 1996
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgments given in the cases of Mitthu v. State (supra), and Suresh Chand v. State (supra), should be treated as judgments per-incurium and it should be held that there is no contrary view on the issue and this Second Bail Application should be treated as maintainable.
Smt. Premlata vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 November, 1997
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Smt. Premlata v. State of Rajasthan (supra), there is a reference of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 3243/2000, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remanded the matter to consider the Second Bail Application. Learned counsel submits that it was a case arising out of Second Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. itself.
Babulal Saini vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 February, 2000
7(ii) In Babulal v. State of Rajasthan , 2004(3) R.Cr.D. 504 (Raj.), this Court considered the issue as to whether the Second Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not? This Court held that Second Bail Application for anticipatory bail Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable only on the basis of new facts and in the changed circumstances.
Chetanram Ramgopal vs Chief Engineer, Pwd, Rajasthan And Ors. on 16 April, 1999
7(i) In the case of Ramgopal v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) p. 217 = 1983 RLW 270, the said question was considered and after discussion, it was held that on change of circumstances, subsequent or Second Bail Application Under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.