Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)Section 3 in The Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act, 1999. [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
Brijmani Devi vs Pappu Kumar on 17 December, 2021
9. The present petition has to be decided as per the
parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
State Of Maharashtra vs Shiva @Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane & Ors on 24 July, 2015
"8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Maharashtra v. Shiva Alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane 2015
SCC OnLine SC 648 was dealing with the Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC) Act and the
offence of organised crime under the said act. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that only if an organised crime is
committed by the accused after the promulgation of the
MCOCA Act, that he may be seen in the light of the
previous charge sheet, which is taken cognisance by the
competent court, would have committed an offence under
Section 3 of the Act.
Syed Muhammed Hashim vs The State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2020
10. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the matter
of Mohammed Hashim v. State of Kerala 2024 SCC OnLine
Ker 5260. The learned Judge of the Kerala High Court has
emphasised that Section 111 can be invoked only if more
than one charge sheet has been filed for such offences in
the preceding ten years before a competent court, and
such charge sheets are taken cognisance of by the court.
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi & Anr on 23 March, 2001
In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4
SCC 280: 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various
aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing
with an application seeking bail. The same may be
extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the
basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the
circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary
manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means
and standing of the accused, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing
the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interests of the public or State and similar other
8
2026:HHC:3356
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the
words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the
evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant
of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution
will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of
the charge." (emphasis supplied)
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh & Ors on 18 March, 2002
58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through
Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion
in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In
highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of
course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as
follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3)
"3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but,
however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order
for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained.
Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being
dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from
case to case. While placement of the accused in the
society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a
guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the
same should always be coupled with other circumstances
warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is
one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail -- the
more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of
rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the
factual matrix of the matter." (emphasis supplied)
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Anr on 12 March, 2004
In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7
SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although
it is established that a court considering a bail application
cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and
an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the
court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons
justifying the grant of bail.
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee & Anr on 29 October, 2010
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14
SCC 496: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that
where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said
order would suffer from the vice of non-application of
mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with
regard to the circumstances under which an order
granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors
which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant
bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9)
"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally,
interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting
or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally
incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of
this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among
other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind
while considering an application for bail are: