Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)
Sukhchain Singh vs U.T Chandigarh on 5 August, 2021 cites

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980

9. Now, it is well settled that the object of detention during investigation and trial is not punishment but to secure presence of the accused during investigation and trial. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception as held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab : 1980(2) SCC 565. Accused is presumed to be innocent till proved to be guilty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 8067 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Moti Ram & Ors vs State Of M.P on 24 August, 1978

Detention in custody may be a cause of great hardship to the accused as he may, besides being subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, lose his job, be prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence and burden of his detention may fall heavily on the innocent numbers of his family as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P. : (1978) 4 SCC 47.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 239 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011

(viii) danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi : (2005)8 SCC 21; Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI : 2012(1) SCC 40 and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and another : 2016(1) SCC 152); (ix) seriousness of the offence (see Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2545 of 2020 titled Naveen Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another decided on 15.03.2021); and (x) whether offences fall in the category of socio-economic offences (see State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachaha Rai : 2017 (13) SCC 751 and Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2018(11) SCC 46).
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 20107 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 1 September, 2015

(viii) danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi : (2005)8 SCC 21; Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI : 2012(1) SCC 40 and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and another : 2016(1) SCC 152); (ix) seriousness of the offence (see Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2545 of 2020 titled Naveen Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another decided on 15.03.2021); and (x) whether offences fall in the category of socio-economic offences (see State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachaha Rai : 2017 (13) SCC 751 and Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2018(11) SCC 46).
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 397 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Naveen Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 15 March, 2021

(viii) danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi : (2005)8 SCC 21; Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI : 2012(1) SCC 40 and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and another : 2016(1) SCC 152); (ix) seriousness of the offence (see Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2545 of 2020 titled Naveen Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another decided on 15.03.2021); and (x) whether offences fall in the category of socio-economic offences (see State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachaha Rai : 2017 (13) SCC 751 and Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2018(11) SCC 46).
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 47 - M R Shah - Full Document

The State Of Bihar And Anr vs Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai on 20 April, 2017

(viii) danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi : (2005)8 SCC 21; Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI : 2012(1) SCC 40 and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and another : 2016(1) SCC 152); (ix) seriousness of the offence (see Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2545 of 2020 titled Naveen Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another decided on 15.03.2021); and (x) whether offences fall in the category of socio-economic offences (see State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachaha Rai : 2017 (13) SCC 751 and Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2018(11) SCC 46).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 212 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Rohit Tandon vs The Enforcement Directorate on 10 November, 2017

(viii) danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see State of U.P. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi : (2005)8 SCC 21; Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI : 2012(1) SCC 40 and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and another : 2016(1) SCC 152); (ix) seriousness of the offence (see Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2545 of 2020 titled Naveen Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another decided on 15.03.2021); and (x) whether offences fall in the category of socio-economic offences (see State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachaha Rai : 2017 (13) SCC 751 and Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2018(11) SCC 46).
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 128 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 6.8.7 Sympathising with the plight of victims under Criminal Justice administration and taking advantage of the obligation to do complete justice under the Indian Constitution in defense of human rights, the Supreme Court and High Courts in India have of late evolved the practice of awarding compensatory remedies not only in terms of money but also in terms of other appropriate reliefs and remedies. Medical justice for the Bhagalpur blinded victims, rehabilitative justice to the communal violence victims and compensatory justice to the Union Carbide victims are examples of this liberal package of reliefs and remedies forged by the apex Court. The recent decisions in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (19932 SCC 746) and in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das are illustrative of this new trend of using Constitutional jurisdiction to do justice to victims of crime. Substantial monetary compensations have been awarded 7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 06-08-2021 04:03:52 ::: CRM-M-19832-2021 -8- against the instrumentalities of the state for failure to protect the rights of the victim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 690 - J S Verma - Full Document

The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 6.8.7 Sympathising with the plight of victims under Criminal Justice administration and taking advantage of the obligation to do complete justice under the Indian Constitution in defense of human rights, the Supreme Court and High Courts in India have of late evolved the practice of awarding compensatory remedies not only in terms of money but also in terms of other appropriate reliefs and remedies. Medical justice for the Bhagalpur blinded victims, rehabilitative justice to the communal violence victims and compensatory justice to the Union Carbide victims are examples of this liberal package of reliefs and remedies forged by the apex Court. The recent decisions in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (19932 SCC 746) and in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das are illustrative of this new trend of using Constitutional jurisdiction to do justice to victims of crime. Substantial monetary compensations have been awarded 7 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 06-08-2021 04:03:52 ::: CRM-M-19832-2021 -8- against the instrumentalities of the state for failure to protect the rights of the victim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 283 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Savitri W/O Shri Govind Singh Rawat vs Shri Govind Singh Rawat on 9 October, 1985

12. In Re: State of Assam & 2 Others (PIL (Suo Motu) No. 26/2013) decided vide judgement dated 24.4.2013, a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court considered the question whether interim compensation can be ordered to be paid at the earliest to the victim irrespective of stage of enquiry or trial, either on application of the victim or suo motu by the Court. While referring to judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Vs. Govind Singh Rawat : 1986(1) RCR (Criminal) 83 and Shail Kumari Devi Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak : 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 842 (in which the Magistrate was held to have the power to direct the payment of interim compensation under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.) the Division Bench of Guahati High Court observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 174 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1   2 Next