Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Satish Kumar Jatav vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2022
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Kumar Jatav vs. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488 has held that the ground that "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case" cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offence alleged.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.102 has held as under:-
Aman Preet Singh vs Republic Of India (Cbi) .... Opposite ... on 9 July, 2021
It is needless to mention that if the applicants appear before the court below and apply for grant of bail, the court below shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh v. C.B.I., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.
Ramveer Upadhyay vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 April, 2022
Likewise in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P., AIR 2022 SC 2044 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for asking. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint/F.I.R. except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. Entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage itself might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice.
Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 April, 2022
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513 in para nos.16, 17 and 18 has held as under:-
1