Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Ash Mohammad vs Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr on 20 September, 2012
However, the apex court in heinous offences cancelled the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another reported in 2012 SCCL.COM 457 keeping in view the history-sheet of the accused.
Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta vs C.B.I & Anr on 10 February, 2012
On the other hand following the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), the apex court has granted bail in the case of Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Vs. C.B.I. And another reported in 2012 SCCL.Com 73.
C.M.Sharma vs State Of A.P. Th. I.P on 25 November, 2010
In the opinion of the Court, the judgments in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) and in the case of C.M. Sharma (supra) therefore do not come to the aid of the applicants for the purpose of bail at least at this stage.
Kanwar Singh Meena vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 16 October, 2012
It is to be noted that the cases of Amarmani Tripathi (supra) and Kanwar Singh Meena (supra) were in relation to offences against the human body.
Nanha S/O Nabhan Kha vs State Of U.P. on 18 September, 1992
There is another argument raised about claiming parity with the bail order dated 4.9.2012 in bail application no. 22530 of 2012 extracted hereinabove. I agree with the learned AGA that the said bail order did not examine the magnitude of the offence or considered the wide ramifications of the offence as well as the evidence collected and noted above while granting bail. This Court in the case of Nanha Vs. State reported in 1993 Cr.L.J. 938 has held that parity is not a matter of right and the bail application has to be assessed on the material disclosed in relation to a particular accused. The plea of parity therefore does not impress the Court.