Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
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 petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that
the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course
of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the
heinousness of the crime.
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra ... on 6 December, 1977
In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC
240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release
unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course.
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi & Anr on 23 March, 2001
In Prahlad Singh
Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for
bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations.
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.
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.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a
Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the
cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail.
Aparna Bhat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2021
458); and Aparna
Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.