Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Vihabhai Sartanbhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2003 cites

Ram Pratap Yadav vs Mitra Sen Yadav & Anr on 20 November, 2002

9. Number of factors which require consideration at the time of grant of bail have been enumerated in number of the decisions, but I have kept in mind the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Pratap Yadav v. Mitra Sen Yadav, reported in 2003 (1) GLR 514 (SC) and also observations made by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Lalji Popat and Ors., reported in 1988 (2) GLR 1073 and the ratio of this decision goes against the present applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 24 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Lalji Popat And Ors. on 2 April, 1988

9. Number of factors which require consideration at the time of grant of bail have been enumerated in number of the decisions, but I have kept in mind the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Pratap Yadav v. Mitra Sen Yadav, reported in 2003 (1) GLR 514 (SC) and also observations made by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Lalji Popat and Ors., reported in 1988 (2) GLR 1073 and the ratio of this decision goes against the present applicant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 27 - M B Shah - Full Document

P. Ramachandra Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2002

9(ii) It is true that in the decision in the case of P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2002 (2) GLR 1549 (SC) : 2002 AIR SCW 1841, the directions with regard to the bail issued by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause Case-I, reported in 1996 AIR SCW 2279, while following the decision, the Apex Court abstained from dealing with the legality and propriety as that was not the subject-matter of reference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 938 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 10 December, 1991

But, it cannot be ignored that in the very judgment, the Apex Court has observed that in the case of Abdul Raheman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, reported in 1992 (1) SCC 225, even the Supreme Court has chosen to decline the request for fixing of any period or time-limit for trial of offence not on any total want or lack of jurisdiction of Supreme Court, but for the reasons that it is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any such time-limit and that non-fixation does not in effectuate the guarantee of the right of speedy trial. So, in a case where the accused is facing serious charges i.e. charge of criminal conspiracy to commit the murder and where murder is committed, the Court should be conservative in accepting the bail plea on the ground of alleged delay caused. In the case on hand, the accused is in judicial custody for about 2 years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 715 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next