Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.55 seconds)Section 4 in The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984
The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee & Anr on 29 October, 2010
"9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly
unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to
the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court
4
(2020) 14 SCC 552
5
(2010) 14 SCC 496
18
to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among
other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
The State Of Kerala vs K.Ajith on 28 July, 2021
Insofar
as the other judgment in K.Ajith and others (supra) is concerned, the
same is not applicable to the present case, as the said case is arising
against the final judgment passed by the High Court in Criminal
Appeal Nos.697 and 698 of 2021.
M/S.Gsr Stone Crushers vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 September, 2022
14. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner/accused No.1 in Haryana Mining Company (supra),
and GSR Stone Crushers (supra) are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as the above said judgments are
related to termination of lease, imposition of fine and penalty.
K. Jagadish vs Udaya Kumar G.S. on 10 January, 2020
17. It is pertinent to mention that in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar
G.S 4., the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-settled
principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and
criminal proceedings, and that availing a civil remedy does not bar the
initiation of criminal prosecution.
M/S Haryana Mining Company vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 September, 2021
14. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner/accused No.1 in Haryana Mining Company (supra),
and GSR Stone Crushers (supra) are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as the above said judgments are
related to termination of lease, imposition of fine and penalty.
1