Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.85 seconds)
Kuldeep Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 28 June, 2022 cites

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 2 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 28-06-2022 21:43:46 ::: CRM-M-26571-2022 3 three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution 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 satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2834 - Full Document

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

In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioners who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioners to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 3729 - V R Iyer - Full Document

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

In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions 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

Sumit Mehta vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 13 September, 2013

In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1375 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Vikram Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 25 August, 2020

20. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners shall not enter the property, workplace, and the residence of the victim and shall also not enter within a radius of one-hundred meters from the victim's home till the recording of the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.)
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 618 - Full Document
1   2 Next