Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (1.59 seconds)Ms. X vs The State Of Telangana on 17 May, 2018
41. Said Narendra K Amin supra and Talab Haji
Hussain supra of equal three Judge Bench expressions,
besides larger Bench expressions earlier of the Apex Court
including of the five Judge Bench expression in Ratilal
Bhanji Mithani supra not brought to the notice and not came
for consideration in the recent three Judge Bench expression
in Ms. X vs. State of Telangana supra.
Kanwar Singh Meena vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 16 October, 2012
We would like to reproduce following discussion from
the judgment in the case of Kanwar Singh Meena v.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.[6]: 10...While cancelling bail
under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary
considerations which weigh with the court are whether
the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or
interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of
justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is
not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can
cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail
suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage
of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant
materials indicating prima facie involvement of the
accused or takes into account irrelevant material,
which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail
to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court
would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders
are against the well recognized principles underlying
the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm
and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and
absence of supervening circumstances such as the
propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence,
to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from
cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions
Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly
when they are passed releasing accused involved in
heinous crimes because they ultimately result in
weakening the prosecution case and have adverse
impact on the society. Needless to say that though the
powers of this court are much wider, this court is
equally guided by the above principles in the matter of
grant or cancellation of bail.
Neeru Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 29 September, 2015
691, para 6) 6 Liberty is to be secured through
process of law, which is administered keeping in mind
the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the
victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and
believe that there is no justice in the world as also the
collective interest of the community so that parties do
not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private
retribution. This very aspect of balancing of two
interests has again been discussed lucidly in Neeru
Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.[10] in the
following words:
State Of Bihar vs Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Pd. Yadav @ ... on 24 November, 2016
In State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad , the Apex
Court by scanning the law and dealt with the concept of fair
trial not only for the accused but also for victim, observed
that:
Talab Haji Hussain vs Madhukar Purshottam Mondkarand ... on 7 February, 1958
41. Said Narendra K Amin supra and Talab Haji
Hussain supra of equal three Judge Bench expressions,
besides larger Bench expressions earlier of the Apex Court
including of the five Judge Bench expression in Ratilal
Bhanji Mithani supra not brought to the notice and not came
for consideration in the recent three Judge Bench expression
in Ms. X vs. State of Telangana supra.