Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.60 seconds)Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Panchanan Mishra vs Digambar Mishra & Ors on 17 January, 2005
178), State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005 (8) SCC 21)
and Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra (2005 (3) SCC 143). It
is pointed out that the common thread passing through the
aforesaid decisions is that there is no scope for cancellation of bail
on re-appreciation of evidence.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Anr on 12 March, 2004
21. Though the High Court appears to have used the expression
'ban' on the grant of bail in serious offences, actually it is referable
to the decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:59:33 :::CIS
8
Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. (2004 (7) SCC 528) In para 11 it
.
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Anr., State Of Maharashtra & ... on 3 May, 2001
In Puran v. Rambilas and Anr. (2001 (6) SCC 338) it was noted
as follows:
Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors on 10 March, 1980
"I agree with the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the complainant that while granting bail the learned Judge
ought not to have ventured to discuss the merits or
demerits of the evidence collected against the accused
persons. Probably he was not aware or he was not
remined of the advice given by the Apex Court in the case
of Niranjan Singh & another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote and Others reported in AIR 1980 S.C. 785
wherein detailed examination of the evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merits of the case while
passing orders on bail application was deprecated."
Dolat Ram & Ors vs The State Of Haryana on 11 November, 1994
In support of this submission he relies
upon the authority in the case of Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana reported in 1995 (1) S.C.C. 349. In this case it has been
held that rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage
and the cancellation of bail already granted have to be considered
and dealt with on different basis. It has been held that very cogent
and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order
directing the cancellation of the bail already granted. It has been
held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail
broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course
of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due
course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused
in any manner. It is, however, to be noted that this Court has
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:59:33 :::CIS
12
clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not
.
Subhendu Mishra vs Subrat Kumar Mishra And Anr. on 22 February, 1999
12.It must be mentioned that in support of the above submission
Mr. Lalit had also relied upon the authorities in the cases
of Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra and another reported
in 1999 Crl.L.J. 4063, State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay
Gandhi reported in (1978) 2 S.C.C. 411 and Bhagirathsinh s/o
Mahipat Singh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 (1)
S.C.C. 284. These need not be dealt with separately as they are of
no assistance in a case of this nature where bail has been
cancelled for very cogent and correct reasons.
State (Delhi Administration) vs Sanjay Gandhi on 5 May, 1978
12.It must be mentioned that in support of the above submission
Mr. Lalit had also relied upon the authorities in the cases
of Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra and another reported
in 1999 Crl.L.J. 4063, State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay
Gandhi reported in (1978) 2 S.C.C. 411 and Bhagirathsinh s/o
Mahipat Singh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 (1)
S.C.C. 284. These need not be dealt with separately as they are of
no assistance in a case of this nature where bail has been
cancelled for very cogent and correct reasons.