Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)
Dr. Vinod Bhandari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2014 cites

Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946

There is no proof of identity and, therefore, such an evidence cannot be read against the applicant at this stage.  It is contended   that   the   trial   is   to   be   conducted   by   a Magistrate,   which   will   take   a   long   time   and   looking  to such scanty evidence available against the applicant, if he is not released on bail, in fact he would undergo the entire length of sentence which could be imposed after the trial, even without finding him guilty of such offence. It  is,  thus,   contended   that   in  catena  of   cases,   in  such circumstances the Apex Court has held that the accused is   entitled   to   grant   of   bail.   Primarily,   learned   senior Counsel   for   the   applicant   has   placed   their   reliance   on the case of Pulukuri Kottaya and others Vs. Emperor, AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 67, and contended that in fact the entire evidence as well as the statement of co­ accused is not admissible in view of the well settled law.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 918 - Full Document

Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011

It is contended that circumstantial evidence, the nature of offence and all other aspects have M.Cr.C. No.10371/2014 5 been   looked   into   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, and it has been held that the regular bail is not to be refused in such circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 20107 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta vs C.B.I & Anr on 10 February, 2012

5. On   the   other   hand,   learned   Additional   Advocate General has placed reliance on the cases of Ram Narain Poply vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003 SC   2748,  Kanwar   Singh   Meena   vs.   State   of Rajasthan  and  another, (2012)  12  SCC 180,  Dipak Subhashchandra   Mehta  (supra),  Manoj   Ramesh Mehta vs. state  of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 622, and  Gulabrao   Baburao   Deokar   vs.   State   of Maharashtra and others, 2014 Cri.L.J. 845  and has contended   that   not   only  the   investigation   in   respect   of the applicant is incomplete, the fact was also found that when the offence was registered against the applicant, he went away to a foreign country.   Despite the notice, he did   not   surrender   before   the   Court   instead   persuaded this Court to grant him anticipatory bail in another case. In   excel­sheet   the   fact   was   found   that   there   were   8 M.Cr.C. No.10371/2014 6 candidates sponsored by the applicant for admission in the   medical   colleges,   out   of   whom   5   have   been interrogated.     Some   of   them   have   been   granted   the anticipatory   bail.     Yet   one   candidate   is   required   to   be called   and   examination   in   his/her   respect   is   to   be conducted.   The   fact   remains   that   huge   amount   was found   in   custody   of   co­accused   Raghuvanshi   who   was his employee and was working in the institution of the applicant,   and   that   the   independent   witnesses   have stated the fact about acceptance of money by the allies of the   applicant   on   the   instructions   of   the   applicant   and their statements clearly implicate the applicant in such a scam.   Besides,   the   past   conduct   of   the   applicant,   the social circumstances are also to be kept in mind looking to the gravity of the nature of offence committed by the persons   like   applicant   and,   therefore,   the   applicant   is not entitled to grant of bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 172 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Ram Narain Popli vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 14 January, 2003

5. On   the   other   hand,   learned   Additional   Advocate General has placed reliance on the cases of Ram Narain Poply vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003 SC   2748,  Kanwar   Singh   Meena   vs.   State   of Rajasthan  and  another, (2012)  12  SCC 180,  Dipak Subhashchandra   Mehta  (supra),  Manoj   Ramesh Mehta vs. state  of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 622, and  Gulabrao   Baburao   Deokar   vs.   State   of Maharashtra and others, 2014 Cri.L.J. 845  and has contended   that   not   only  the   investigation   in   respect   of the applicant is incomplete, the fact was also found that when the offence was registered against the applicant, he went away to a foreign country.   Despite the notice, he did   not   surrender   before   the   Court   instead   persuaded this Court to grant him anticipatory bail in another case. In   excel­sheet   the   fact   was   found   that   there   were   8 M.Cr.C. No.10371/2014 6 candidates sponsored by the applicant for admission in the   medical   colleges,   out   of   whom   5   have   been interrogated.     Some   of   them   have   been   granted   the anticipatory   bail.     Yet   one   candidate   is   required   to   be called   and   examination   in   his/her   respect   is   to   be conducted.   The   fact   remains   that   huge   amount   was found   in   custody   of   co­accused   Raghuvanshi   who   was his employee and was working in the institution of the applicant,   and   that   the   independent   witnesses   have stated the fact about acceptance of money by the allies of the   applicant   on   the   instructions   of   the   applicant   and their statements clearly implicate the applicant in such a scam.   Besides,   the   past   conduct   of   the   applicant,   the social circumstances are also to be kept in mind looking to the gravity of the nature of offence committed by the persons   like   applicant   and,   therefore,   the   applicant   is not entitled to grant of bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 369 - Full Document
1   2 Next