Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 March, 2023 cites

Mohammed Zubair vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 July, 2022

In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, Writ Pe on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail condi ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail condi ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi ons that would result in the depriva on of rights and liber es must be eschewed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 349 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

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 en tled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecu on 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 sa sfac on for the need to release such 2 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 20:40:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-53224-2022 person on bail, in the given fact situa ons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2834 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay on 20 September, 1977

The rejec on of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applica on. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situa on. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no ceably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances sugges ve of fleeing from jus ce or thwar ng the course of jus ce or crea ng other troubles in the shape of repea ng offences or in mida ng witnesses and the like by the pe oner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the pe oner to avoid the course of jus ce and must weigh when considering the ques on of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 3729 - V R Iyer - Full Document

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, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a siDng Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquiFal 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 1 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2023 20:40:28 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CRM-M-53224-2022 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 jurisdic on of the Court etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1499 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Dataram Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 February, 2018

In Dataram Singh v State of UFar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is en rely within the discre on of the judge hearing the maFer and though that discre on is unfeFered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condi ons for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 35378 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1   2 Next