Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.18 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
Sibbia [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] had observed
that : (SCC p. 584, para 19)
"19.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
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, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted:
Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors on 10 March, 1980
19. Reference can be usefully made to Niranjan Singh
v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559, wherein it
was held:
Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 10 September, 2012
20. That apart, in Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of
Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed '...Moreover, while considering the application for bail,
scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7496 of 2021 dt.27-07-2021
16/34
limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of
the evidence on record...'.
The State vs Captain Jagjit Singh on 14 September, 1961
32. A word of caution may perhaps be necessary in
the evaluation of the consideration whether the applic-
ant is likely to abscond. There can be no presumption
that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves
to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away
from the course of justice, any more than there can be a
presumption that the former are not likely to commit a
crime and the latter are more likely to commit it. In his
charge to the grand jury at Salisbury Assizes, 1899 (to
which Krishna Iyer, J. has referred in Gudikanti [(1978)
1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115] ), Lord Russel of Kil-
lowen said: (SCC p. 243, para 5)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7496 of 2021 dt.27-07-2021
18/34
"... it was the duty of Magistrates to admit ac-
cused persons to bail, wherever practicable, unless
there were strong grounds for supposing that such
persons would not appear to take their trial. It was
not the poorer classes who did not appear, for their
circumstances were such as to tie them to the place
where they carried on their work. They had not the
golden wings with which to fly from justice."
This, incidentally, will serve to show how no hard and
fast rules can be laid down in discretionary matters like
the grant or refusal of bail, whether anticipatory or oth-
erwise. No such rules can be laid down for the simple
reason that a circumstance which, in a given case, turns
out to be conclusive, may have no more than ordinary
signification in another case.