Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.42 seconds)Section 392 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sailesh Jaiswal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors. on 13 July, 1998
In this context, he referred to the decision of this Court in the
case of Sailesh Jaiswal Vs. The State of W.B. & Ors., as reported in 1998 C.Cr. LR
(Cal) 342. It was then claimed that there could be no dispute regarding the power of the
learned Sessions Court to grant bail for transitional period.
Naresh Kumar Yadav vs Ravindra Kumar And Ors on 23 October, 2007
Reference was also made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between
Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Ravindra Kumar & Ors., as reported in AIR 2008 Sc 218.
It was observed that 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 Apex Court in the said case further observed that the power being of
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 custody.
D.K. Ganesh Babu vs P.T. Manokaran & Ors on 23 February, 2007
In the case of D.K. Ganesh Babu Vs. P. T. Manokaran & Ors., as reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 434, the Apex Court held that the Court ordinarily will not interfere with the
investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An
interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section
438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate,
be done under Section 438 of the Code.
Budhwa Alias Ramcharan And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 1990
In Ramcharan Vs. State of M.P., as reported in (2004) 13 SCC 617, the Apex
Court held that bail can be cancelled on existence of cogent and overwhelming
circumstances but not on reappreciation of the facts of the case. In absence of any
supervening circumstances which might warrant recalling of the order which granted bail,
suo motu cancellation of bail by the High Court merely on the ground that the bail order
was passed on some misapprehension of factual position is not sustainable.
Gurcharan Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Administration) on 6 December, 1977
The question of cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is certainly different from admission to bail under Section 439(1). The approach
is whether the order granting bail is vitiated by any serious infirmity for which it is right
and proper for the High Court, in the interest of justice, to interfere. Ordinarily the High
Court does not exercise its discretion to interfere with an order of bail granted by the
Sessions Judge in favour of an accused person. (Ref: Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Vs. State
(Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118).
State (Delhi Administration) vs Sanjay Gandhi on 5 May, 1978
In State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Sanjay Gandhi, as reported in (1978) 2 SCC
411, the Apex Court observed that proving by the test of balance of probabilities that the
accused has abused his liberty or that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will
interfere with the course of justice is all that is necessary for the prosecution to do in order
to succeed in an application for cancellation of bail.
Bhagirathsinh S/O Mahipat Singh Judeja vs State Of Gujarat on 21 November, 1983
Mr. Bandyopadhyay categorically submitted that very cogent and overwhelming
circumstances are necessary for seeking an order of cancellation of the bail. After all, the
approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way
of punishment. (Ref: Bhagirathsinh Vs. State of Gujarat, (1984) 1 SCC 284).
Manjit Prakash & Ors vs Shobha Devi & Anr on 18 July, 2008
In the case between Manjit Prakash & Ors. Vs. Shobha Devi & Anr, as reported
in 2008(5) Supreme 265, it was held that when a person to whom bail has been granted
either tries to interfere with course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or
witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper
smooth investigation or trail, bail granted can be cancelled.