Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.91 seconds)
Gnanasekaran Thiyagaraj vs State Rep.By cites

Dinesh Dalmia vs C.B.I on 18 September, 2007

12. The case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI [(2007) 8 SCC 770 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 36] , which is relied upon by the High Court, relates to granting of bail under Section 167(2) CrPC. In the said case, the absconder-accused (Dinesh Dalmia) after his arrest was produced before the Magistrate, and on the request of CBI, police custody was granted on 14-2-2006 till 24-2-2006, whereafter on another application further police custody was granted till 8-3-2006. The said accused was remanded to judicial custody, and the accused sought statutory bail under sub- section (2) of Section 167 CrPC as no charge-sheet was filed against him by CBI within sixty days of his arrest. The Magistrate rejected the application for statutory bail on the ground that it was a case of further investigation after filing of the charge-sheet, and the remand of the accused to judicial custody was under
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 158 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977

In Madhu Limaye case [Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10 : AIR 1978 SC 47] this Court has exhaustively and, if I may say so with great respect, correctly discussed and delineated the law beyond mistake. While it is true that Section 482 is pervasive it should not subvert legal interdicts written into the same Code, such, for instance, in Section 397(2). Apparent conflict may arise in some situations between the two provisions and a happy solution “ would be to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one or the other principles enunciated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 / 24 Crl.O.P.No.16024 of 2023 above, the inherent power will come into play, there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. But such cases would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly. One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction” [(1977) 4 SCC 551, 556, para 10 : AIR 1978 SC 47, 51] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1313 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

P.K. Shaji @ Thammanam Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2005

(g) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Special Judge/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 3829 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Rathin Dandapath & Ors on 21 August, 2015

The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.B.I Vs. Rathin Dandapat and Ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 507 was also relied upon and specific reference was made to the paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the said judgment. By https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 / 24 Crl.O.P.No.16024 of 2023 relying upon this judgment, it was contended that if a person is arrested in the course of enquiry or trial, Section 309(2) of Cr.P.C., will come into play. However, if a person is arrested and remanded to custody in the course of further investigation, Section 167 of Cr.P.C., will come into operation so long as the further investigation continues.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 12 - P C Pant - Full Document
1   2 Next