Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.85 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 416 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 470 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011
16. Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, learned counsel for applicant Mohit submits
that applicant has no criminal antecedents and his period of incarceration is
six months and investigation qua him is over as charge-sheet has already
been filed on 21.11.2025. According to him, his role is merely peripheral in
nature and the solitary allegation against him is to the effect that his bank
account was used as a conduit by the actual perpetrator of the crime. He
submits that offences alleged against him are triable by Magistrate and invite
maximum sentence of 07 years and no useful purpose would be served by
keeping him behind the bars, particularly when investigation qua him is
over. He submits that he never evaded investigation and immediately, on
receipt of notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS, joined the investigation.
Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2012) 1
SCC 40, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement: (2020) 13 SCC
791 and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement: (2024) 12 SCC 660,
it is contended that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of gravity of
the offence.
P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019
16. Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, learned counsel for applicant Mohit submits
that applicant has no criminal antecedents and his period of incarceration is
six months and investigation qua him is over as charge-sheet has already
been filed on 21.11.2025. According to him, his role is merely peripheral in
nature and the solitary allegation against him is to the effect that his bank
account was used as a conduit by the actual perpetrator of the crime. He
submits that offences alleged against him are triable by Magistrate and invite
maximum sentence of 07 years and no useful purpose would be served by
keeping him behind the bars, particularly when investigation qua him is
over. He submits that he never evaded investigation and immediately, on
receipt of notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS, joined the investigation.
Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2012) 1
SCC 40, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement: (2020) 13 SCC
791 and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement: (2024) 12 SCC 660,
it is contended that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of gravity of
the offence.
Manish Sisodia vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 July, 2023
16. Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, learned counsel for applicant Mohit submits
that applicant has no criminal antecedents and his period of incarceration is
six months and investigation qua him is over as charge-sheet has already
been filed on 21.11.2025. According to him, his role is merely peripheral in
nature and the solitary allegation against him is to the effect that his bank
account was used as a conduit by the actual perpetrator of the crime. He
submits that offences alleged against him are triable by Magistrate and invite
maximum sentence of 07 years and no useful purpose would be served by
keeping him behind the bars, particularly when investigation qua him is
over. He submits that he never evaded investigation and immediately, on
receipt of notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS, joined the investigation.
Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2012) 1
SCC 40, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement: (2020) 13 SCC
791 and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement: (2024) 12 SCC 660,
it is contended that bail cannot be denied merely on the basis of gravity of
the offence.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
17. It is also argued that there is no absolute bar on bail in cases of
economic offences and, moreover, there is nothing to indicate that applicant
is a flight risk or likely to tamper with the evidence or hamper with the
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 40/2026, BAIL APPLN. 133/2026 5
Signed By:SONIA BAIL APPLN. 226/2026 & BAIL APPLN. 243/2026
THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:22.04.2026
15:04:08
investigation and, therefore, bail should not be withheld as a punishment.
Reliance in this regard has been placed upon Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and
Ors. v. State of Punjab: (1980) 2 SCC 565.