Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 December, 1995
In K.L. Verma's case (supra) reference was
made to Salauddin's case (supra).
L.K. Verma vs H.M.T. Ltd. & Anr on 31 January, 2006
In the said case there was no
such indication as given in K.L. Verma's case (supra), that a few
days can be granted to the accused to move the higher Court if
they so desire. The statutory requirement of Section 439 of the
Code cannot be said to have been rendered totally inoperative by
the said observation.
Nirmal Jeet Kaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr on 1 September, 2004
(Emphasis supplied)
In Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. and Another (2004 (7)
SCC 558) and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and Anr. Criminal
Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.)
Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors on 10 March, 1980
In view of the clear language of Section 439 and in view of the
decision of this Court in Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. Prabhakar
Rajaram Kharote and Ors. (AIR 1980 SC 785), there cannot be any
doubt that unless a person is in custody, an application for bail
under Section 439 of the Code would not be maintainable. The
question when a person can be said to be in custody within the
meaning of Section 439 of the Code came up for consideration
before this Court in the aforesaid decision.
Balchand Jain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 November, 1976
The apex Court in
Balachand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1977 SC 366)
has described the expression 'anticipatory bail' as a misnomer. It
is well-known that bail is ordinary manifestation of arrest, that the
Court thinks first to make an order is that in the event of arrest a
person shall be released on bail. Manifestly there is no question of
release on bail unless the accused is arrested, and therefore, it is
only on an arrest being effected the order becomes operative. The
power exercisable under Section 438 is somewhat extraordinary in
character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that
the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable
grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not
likely to otherwise misuse his liberty then power is to be exercised
under Section 438. The power being of an important nature it is
entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial forums, i.e. the
Court of Session or the High Court. It is the power exercisable in
case of an anticipated accusation of non-bailable offence. The
object which is sought to be achieved by Section 438 of the Code is
that the moment a person is arrested, if he has already obtained
an order from the Court of Session or High Court, he shall be
released immediately on bail without being sent to jail.
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Adri Dharan Das vs State Of West Bengal on 21 February, 2005
In view of what has been stated above some of the directions,
given by learned Single Judge, as quoted above, are not in line
with what has been stated in Adri Dharan Das's case (supra).
Accordingly we modify the directions. Since the respondents have
already surrendered and have been granted bail in terms of the
High Court's directions, they shall surrender before the concerned
court and shall move for bail in terms of Section 439 of the Code
within four weeks from today. On that being done the case shall
be considered in its proper perspective uninfluenced by the fact we
have disapproved stipulation of conditions by the High Court. The
concerned court shall deal with the matter appropriately. It is
brought to our notice that the husband of the deceased has
already been released on bail after his surrender. The effect
and/or relevance of that order shall be duly considered by the
concerned court while dealing with the application for bail to be
filed within stipulated time.
1