Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)Section 37 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011
" This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic
offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant
of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person
would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more
than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after
conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly
tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is
neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any
imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and
it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of
disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it
or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of
giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2022 20:03:36 :::CIS
8
that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or
.
S.C. Legal Aid Committee Representrial ... vs Union Of India on 7 October, 1994
"11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused
for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in
violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v.
Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of
India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have
been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2022 20:03:36 :::CIS
9
long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the
.
Shaheen Welfare Association vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 1996
"11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused
for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in
violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v.
Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of
India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have
been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2022 20:03:36 :::CIS
9
long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the
.
Paramjit Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 13 January, 1999
trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999)
9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569).
Dataram Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 2018
In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail,
accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2022 20:03:36 :::CIS
11
enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in
.