Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.35 seconds)Ravindra Saxena vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2009
51. The defence plea of parity is misconceived. Grant of bail to
another accused does not automatically entitle every co-accused to bail.
Parity applies only when roles are identical. The material against the
22
present applicant shows his operational role in the cash movement
chain. Bail granted to other accused persons does not dilute the
seriousness of evidence against the applicant. The Apex Court in
Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 SCC 684, has
clarified that parity cannot be claimed when roles and evidence differ.
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Nittin Johari on 12 September, 2019
71. While the Apex Court has repeatedly underscored the gravity of
economic offences-observing as in Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI
(2013) 7 SCC 439 and Serious Fraud Investigation Officer Vs. Nitin
Johari (2019) 9 SCC 165 that they strike at the heart of public interest-
judicial discretion demands a vigilant balance. The seriousness of
allegations must never eclipse the constitutional bulwarks safeguarding
individual liberty. Bail cannot be withheld as mere censure for the
alleged conduct; to do so risks transforming pre-trial custody into
impermissible punishment before guilt is adjudged.
Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy vs C.B.I on 9 May, 2013
71. While the Apex Court has repeatedly underscored the gravity of
economic offences-observing as in Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI
(2013) 7 SCC 439 and Serious Fraud Investigation Officer Vs. Nitin
Johari (2019) 9 SCC 165 that they strike at the heart of public interest-
judicial discretion demands a vigilant balance. The seriousness of
allegations must never eclipse the constitutional bulwarks safeguarding
individual liberty. Bail cannot be withheld as mere censure for the
alleged conduct; to do so risks transforming pre-trial custody into
impermissible punishment before guilt is adjudged.
Union Of India vs K.A. Najeeb on 1 February, 2021
69. The prosecution's case rests on voluminous documentary and
digital evidence, necessitating examination of a plethora of witnesses. In
such complex matters, trial commencement and conclusion are destined
to consume considerable time. The Apex Court in Union of India v.
K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 has authoritatively held that prolonged
pre-trial incarceration offends guarantee of personal liberty under Article
Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011
59. The Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, has
held that detention pending trial should not be used as a measure of
punishment and that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the
accused at trial.
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019
In economic offences
23
of this magnitude, where public exchequer stands imperilled and
societal trust in financial systems is eroded, the discretionary relief of
bail must be denied to safeguard the investigative process and prevent
impunity, as reiterated by the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v.
Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 and State of Gujarat v.
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 1 SCR 1.
Nimmagadda Prasad vs C.B.I., Hyderabad on 9 May, 2013
52. It is well settled that mere filing of charge-sheet does not entitle an
accused to bail where risks of influencing witnesses or obstructing
investigation persist. The Apex Court in Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI,
(2013) 7 SCC 466, held that in economic offences, filing of charge-sheet
alone is not sufficient ground to grant bail. In the present case,
investigation into proceeds of crime and wider conspiracy is still
ongoing, and the applicant's release may frustrate further investigation.