Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a
Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the
cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr on 18 January, 2005
In
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a
three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable
offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has
failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima
facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such
person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing
a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances
then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation.
State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay on 20 September, 1977
In State of Rajasthan v
Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the
basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or
2
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2022 07:26:55 :::
CRM-M-55012-2022 3
creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and
the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that
the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course
of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the
heinousness of the crime.
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra ... on 6 December, 1977
In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC
240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release
unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course.
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi & Anr on 23 March, 2001
In Prahlad Singh
Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for
bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations.
Dataram Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 2018
In
Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held
that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the
matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously,
compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought
not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory.
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,
1
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2022 07:26:54 :::
CRM-M-55012-2022 2
[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.
Aparna Bhat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2021
458); and Aparna
Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.