Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (1.17 seconds)Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Gujarat vs Lalji Popat And Ors. on 2 April, 1988
In the result, respectfully following and applying the ratio of the judgments in STATE OF GUJARAT v. LALJI POPAT, (supra) and STATE ADMINISTRATION v. RAMESH TAURANI (supra) and upon the prima facie findings as above, the applications are rejected without prejudice to the right of the applicants to pray for bail before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. If and when such a prayer is made, the Court will consider the same without in any way being influenced by the observations made in this order. Rule in each application is discharged.
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Solanki Ravibhai Dipubhai And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 10 September, 1991
Another judgment of this Court in SOLANKI RAVIBHAI DIPUBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT [1992 (1) G.L,R. 631] was relied upon to submit that even a man accused of an offence of murder can be released on bail having regard to the facts of the case. In the facts of that case, there was neither any allegation nor any whisper nor any circumstance suggestive of likelihood of the investigation suffering or being prejudiced or crippled if the accused remained at large.
Daya Ram Tripathi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr on 12 December, 1986
The judgment in DAYA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [1993 (2) Crimes 201] was relied upon to submit that mere apprehension of creation of terror or tampering of evidence was not sufficient to refuse bail.
Kottam Raju Vikram Rao vs State Of Gujarat on 26 May, 1976
The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court in KOTTAM RAJU VIKRAM RAO v. STATE OF GUJARAT [1997 (18) G.L.R. 107) to submit that the material collected during the investigation on which the investigating agency relied to oppose the bail application should be disclosed in some form or the other to the accused. It is held in that case that when bail application under Section 437 or 439 is being heard and the question pertains to liberty of the subject, the subject approaching the court with the prayer for bail should have an opportunity to meet the material collected during the course of investigation on the basis of which it is urged by the other side that the subject should not be released on bail because there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is further held that such material should be disclosed by the investigating agency preferably in the form of an affidavit to be filed by the investigating officer stating therein the bare facts which were disclosed during investigation on which reliance is placed. It may be pertinent to note here that the petition in that case was filed against the order by which the claim of the petitioner to copies of documents and statements recorded by the investigating agency during the course of investigation was negatived. With due respect to the authoritative enunciation of law on various legal aspects of the matter, it can be seen that none of the judgments discussed hereinabove provide a principle or precedent perfectly applicable in the facts of this case, following which the applicants have to be enlarged on bail.
Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967
SANT RAM v. STATE [AIR 1952 J & K 28] was relied upon to submit that the fact of intimidation of the witnesses by the accused ought to be proved for cancelling the bail. It is also held in the same judgment that coming into contact of the prosecution witnesses and exerting undue influence over them would certainly be sufficient for not granting them bail or for cancelling bail.