Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Madhu Tanwar And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 29 May, 2023
In Madhu Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21],
CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed,
[10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial
intelligence has transformed identification techniques
remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly
sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it
traditionally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy
lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the
accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from
justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions can be
inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace
them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall
have a lien over their assets to make good the loss.
Vernon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2023
In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 655,
[para 45], while granting bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, Supreme
Court had directed imposition of the similar condition, which reads as follows, "(d) Both
the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the time they remain on
5
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2023 04:51:26 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:156991
6
CRM-M-55077-2023
bail and shall inform the Investigating Officer of the NIA, their respective mobile
numbers."
Mohammed Zubair vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 July, 2022
In
Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition
(Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not
only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional
to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must
balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so,
conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be
eschewed."
Maulana Mohd.Amir Rashadi vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 16 January, 2012
In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme
Court holds,
[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is
a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also
not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of
proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the
Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has
been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing
away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.