Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.40 seconds)Aslam Babalal Desai vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1992
284), Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992 (4)
SCC 272), Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995 91) SCC 349),
Ramcharan v. State of M.P. (2004 (13) SCC 617), Mehboob
Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2004 (2) SCC 362),
Jayendra Saraswati v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005 (2) SCC 13),
Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar (2005 (4) SCC 178), State of
U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005 (8) SCC 21) and Panchanan
Mishra v. Digambar Mishra (2005 (3) SCC 143). It is pointed
out that the common thread passing through the aforesaid
decisions is that there is no scope for cancellation of bail on
re-appreciation of evidence.
Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2004
It is pointed out that in Mehboob's
case (supra) and Amarmani's case (supra) the bail was
cancelled as it was established that there were serious
attempts to tamper with the evidence and to interfere with and
sidetrack the investigation and threaten the witnesses.
Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2005
284), Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992 (4)
SCC 272), Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995 91) SCC 349),
Ramcharan v. State of M.P. (2004 (13) SCC 617), Mehboob
Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2004 (2) SCC 362),
Jayendra Saraswati v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005 (2) SCC 13),
Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar (2005 (4) SCC 178), State of
U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005 (8) SCC 21) and Panchanan
Mishra v. Digambar Mishra (2005 (3) SCC 143). It is pointed
out that the common thread passing through the aforesaid
decisions is that there is no scope for cancellation of bail on
re-appreciation of evidence.
Panchanan Mishra vs Digambar Mishra & Ors on 17 January, 2005
284), Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1992 (4)
SCC 272), Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995 91) SCC 349),
Ramcharan v. State of M.P. (2004 (13) SCC 617), Mehboob
Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2004 (2) SCC 362),
Jayendra Saraswati v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005 (2) SCC 13),
Nityanand Rai v. State of Bihar (2005 (4) SCC 178), State of
U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005 (8) SCC 21) and Panchanan
Mishra v. Digambar Mishra (2005 (3) SCC 143). It is pointed
out that the common thread passing through the aforesaid
decisions is that there is no scope for cancellation of bail on
re-appreciation of evidence.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Anr on 12 March, 2004
9. Though the High Court appears to have used the
expression 'ban' on the grant of bail in serious offences,
actually it is referable to the decision of this Court in Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr.
(2004 (7) SCC 528) In para 11 it was noted as follows:
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Anr., State Of Maharashtra & ... on 3 May, 2001
13. The perversity as highlighted in Puran's case (supra) can
also flow from the fact that as noted above irrelevant materials
have been taken into consideration adding vulnerability to the
order granting bail. The irrelevant materials should be of a
substantial nature and not of a trivial nature. In the instant
case, the trial Court seems to have been swayed by the fact
that Sohrabuddin, husband of Kausarbi had shady reputation
and criminal antecedents. That was not certainly a factor
which was to be considered while granting bail. It was nature
of the acts which ought to have been considered. By way of
illustration, it can be said that the accused cannot take a plea
while applying for bail that the person whom he killed was
hardened criminal. That certainly is not a factor which can be
taken into account. Another significant factor which was
highlighted by the State before the High Court was that an FIR
allegedly was filed to divert attention from the fake encounter.
The same was not lodged by the Gujarat Police.