Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 July, 2022
"24. Admittedly, the chargesheet has since been filed; the trial has
not yet begin; there are numerous witnesses to be examined and it
would take years to examine them; there is no possibility of
dropping of evidence; the petitioners are not at flight risk as their
passports have since been surrendered; they were earlier released
on interim bail and did not misuse their liberty and have been in
judicial custody for the last more than five years; the applicability
of Section 436A Cr. P.C.; all evidence being documentary and in
custody of Investigating Officer; hence, tempering is ruled out as is
already in the sole custody of the State. Further the accused have
been giving various schemes, including of upfront payments, though
not accepted as they being in jail. Further admittedly, the applicants
have already been granted bail in three other FIRs pending
adjudication before the District Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, thus, in view of the law discussed
above viz. Satender Kumar Antil (supra) Sunil Shakt (supra) and
others, as also the facts stated above more specifically in paras 11,
12, 13, 24 above; I admit both the accused to bail on their
furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5.00 lacs each with one surety each
of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court in each
of the FIR. The petitioners are directed to keep their mobile location
app open at all time. They shall not leave the country without
permission of the learned Trial Court and shall not
threaten/coerce/influence the complainants/victims in any manner
lest it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail."5
Nishant Muttreja (Currently In ... vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 December, 2022
9. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by
a coordinate Bench of this Court in Nishant Muttreja v. State (NCT of
Delhi)4, also relied upon by Mr. Tyagi. In that case, bail was granted in
view of prolonged incarceration, despite the seriousness of allegations
involving a fraud of approximately Rs. 524.16 crores affecting around
6000 investors, with the FIR registered under Sections 420 and 409 IPC.
Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011
In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI8, the Supreme Court held that the
seriousness of the offence, though a relevant consideration, cannot by
itself justify denial of bail, and must be weighed alongwith constitutional
considerations under Article 21, including the right to a speedy trial and
the proportionality of continued incarceration in light of the likely
punishment upon conviction. In this context, the Court observed as
follows:
Nemi Chand Jain vs Enforcement Directorate on 27 November, 2008
In Padam Chand Jain v.
Enforcement Directorate10, it was observed that where the material
evidence is predominantly documentary in nature and already seized by
the prosecution, the possibility of tampering with such evidence stands
considerably diminished.