Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)

Mohammed Zubair vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 July, 2022

In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Pe on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail condi ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail condi ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi ons that would result in the depriva on of rights and liber es must be eschewed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 349 - D Y Chandrachud - 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 siJng Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acqui@al 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 jurisdic on of the Court etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1499 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011

In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Inves ga on, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Supreme Court holds, [28] We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same me, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the inves ga ng agency has already completed inves ga on and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further inves ga on. We are of the view that the appellants are en tled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent condi ons in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 20107 - H L Dattu - Full Document

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 pe on of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the an thesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Informa on Reports, wherein the bail pe oner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecu ons resul ng in acqui@al or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecu on stands withdrawn, or prosecu on 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
1