Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 436 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Dataram Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 2018
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a
general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is
an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union Of India on 23 November, 2017
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has
been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision
delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India,
2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna
Carta.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which
it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v.
King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment.
Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi vs King-Emperor on 1 October, 1923
In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which
it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v.
King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment.
Emperor vs H.L. Hutchinson on 23 April, 1931
Reference was also made to
Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein
it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is
the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old
and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is
almost a century old, going back to colonial days.
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Govt. Of ... on 12 February, 1979
12 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 20-03-2025 07:33:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037714
CRM-M-4551-2025 -13-
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused
as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this,
reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials
should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and
the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
1