Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.43 seconds)
Ram Singh @ Ramu vs State Of Haryana on 27 September, 2022 cites

Paramjeet Singh Bhatia vs State Of Chhattisgarh 38 Wpc/2290/2017 ... on 24 April, 2019

In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 768 - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 35378 - M B Lokur - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1499 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next