Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.46 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011
"This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also
involving an economic offence of formidable
magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant
of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must
be considered a punishment unless it is required to
ensure that an accused person would stand his trial
when called upon and that the courts owe more than
verbal respect to the principle that punishment
begins after conviction and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found
guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is
neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a
caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has
a substantial punitive content and it would be
improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of
disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has
been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to
taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated
that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused
pending trial or in appeal against conviction is
discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with
care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of
liberty of an individual and the interest of the society
in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of
the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant
11
(2017) 5 SCC 218
Page 14 of 20
// 15 //
considerations while examining the application
of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and
the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to
a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. That detention in custody of under
trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount
to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was
highlighted."
Section 4 in The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhji Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 1 July, 1985
(2011) 1 SCC 784
Page 18 of 20
// 19 //
In the case of Bhim Singh v. Union of India (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed directions for the immediate
implementation of Section 436A of Cr.P.C. to ensure that
undertrial prisoners do not continue to be detained in prison
beyond the maximum period provided under the said section of
CrPC. The Court also iterated the necessity for an effective
implementation of Section 436A and fast tracking of the
criminal justice system is necessary. This is to ensure that no
undertrial prisoners shall remain in prison beyond half of the
maximum sentence prescribed for that offence.