Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.39 seconds)
Asif Musthaheen vs State Represented By on 12 December, 2023 cites

National Investigation Agency vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali on 2 April, 2019

“7. Thus, from the observations made in the above Page 12 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.542 of 2023 judgments, it can be seen that in National Investigation Agency Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali's case (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the degree of satisfaction to hold that there is a prima facie case for denying bail would differ from the degree of satisfaction to dismiss a discharge petition on the ground that there is a prima facie case. While considering a discharge petition and assessing the prima facie case, it is trite law that even grave suspicion is sufficient to frame a charge. However, we are of the view that while denying the liberty of a person, the test to assess the prima facie case would be different. The liberty of a person cannot be denied on grave suspicion alone. The Act specifically employs the words “reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such a person is prima facie true”. Further, we are of the view that the accusation must be not only grave, but the materials in support of the accusation must be cogent at whatever stage the bail application is considered. Thus, there must be something more than grave suspicion while holding that there is a prima facie case to deny bail. The Judgements referred to above would also indicate that the above restriction in the proviso to Section 43 D (5) of the UA (P) Act is a slight departure from the bail jurisprudence, namely that bail is the rule and the jail is an exception. It only means that while considering a bail application, the Courts cannot grant bail on mere asking, and there must be reasons for the grant of bail. However, the above restriction found in the proviso to 43 (5) of the UA(P) Act cannot be read to mean that the basic human right or the constitutional right of a person is taken away. Pre-trial detention is an anathema Page 13 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.542 of 2023 to the Constitution besides being in violation of the basic human right. The Judgments referred to above would also indicate that where the Constitutional Courts find that there is an infraction of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the rigours of the proviso would melt down. As to when pre- trial detention would amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In one case, the pre-trial detention, even for six months may be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In yet another case, pre-trial detention of even three years would not amount to a violation of Constitutional right. This would depend on the gravity of the offence alleged, the role played by the particular accused, the nature of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, and the probable punishment that could be imposed on the said accused. The liberty of a person pending trial cannot be ordinarily curtailed unless the law and facts warrant such curtailment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 136 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Union Of India vs K.A. Najeeb on 1 February, 2021

25. Even assuming that the materials collected by the prosecution may ultimately lead to a conviction, the detention pending trial cannot be Page 22 of 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.542 of 2023 indefinite. We have already referred to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb's case (cited supra), wherein it has been held that the rigours of Section 43 – D (5) of the UA(P) Act would be diluted if the accused had been incarcerated for a long time. In the instant case, since the appellant has been in the custody for nearly 17 months, also considering the allegations in the final report and the materials in support of the same, we are inclined to exercise our powers to grant bail to the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1436 - S Kant - Full Document

Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 April, 2005

In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon the observations made in an earlier three Bench Judgment in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma V. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294 while interpreting Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. It is worthwhile to extract the relevant observations made therein:
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 340 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1