Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.03 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Adri Dharan Das vs State Of West Bengal on 21 February, 2005
In Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused respondent might have falsely been implicated or there was reasonable grounds for holding that the person is likely to otherwise misuse the liberty. The power under Section 438 are in somewhat extraordinary in character and are to be only exercised in exceptional cases.
Aslam Babalal Desai vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1992
In this view of the matter, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Catena of decisions noticed herein above, and more particularly in Adri Dharan Das, in my view, prima-facie there is strong evidence of committing the offence of attempt to murder and causing the grievous hurt by use of deadly weapon to various injured persons noticed above having essential ingredients for construing the offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC and deadly weapon of offence i.e. Axe alleged to have been used by the accused respondent No. 2 in inflicting injuries to the injured persons as noticed above on the most vital part i.e. skull and ignoring this material fact and question of recovery of Axe, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail only on the ground that the accused respondent is a serving teacher and no recovery is to be effected from him. Whereas the presence of the accused respondent at the place and time of occurrence is prima-facie established by documentary as well as oral evidence as also his active participation in commission of crime. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the anticipatory bail on extraneous consideration depriving the police to recover the weapon of offence i.e. axe which is material in the trial of the case.
Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gayaram Mondal vs State And Anr. on 13 January, 1995
In Gayaram Mondal v. State and Anr. (supra), a Full Bench of Cancutta High Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused therein on the ground that the allegations in general diary entries that accused subsequent to his release on bail threatening informant and his family members for filing FIR and thus misused the liberty granted to accused.
Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State vs Mahinder Singh on 17 September, 1993
In State v. Mahinder Singh (supra) looking to the gravity of the offence alleged against the persons which are serious in nature and there was apprehension of witnesses being tampered with by the accused, the Delhi High Court thought it fit to cancel the bail and accordingly bail was cancelled.
Chuni Lal And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 19 August, 1997
In Chuni Lal and Ors. v. State of Punjab (supra) the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court cancelled the bail granted on the ground that the accused are misusing the liberty granted to them ever since they have been enlarged on bail.