Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
(1) Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest."
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 7 September, 1990
The Reference came to be made in the backdrop of the decision rendered in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another2 in which a learned Judge framed the following questions for consideration:-
Rashmi Rekha Thatoi & Anr vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 4 May, 2012
The second aspect which needs to be emphasized and reiterated is that Vinod Kumar itself while articulating some of the situations in which the High Court may be moved directly had underlined the necessity of those assertions being evidenced and substantiated in fact. A bald assertion without requisite particulars was neither suggested as being sufficient to petition the High Court nor does such an assumption flow from that decision. Vinod Kumar has explained that an application of grant of anticipatory bail cannot rest on vague and unsubstantiated allegations or lack of material particulars in support of the threat of imminent arrest. The learned Judge has while dealing with this aspect also referred to the pertinent observations as made by the Supreme Court in Rashmi Rekha Thatoi Vs. State of Orissa10. Consequently it must be held that some of the circumstances which have been noted by the learned Judge in Vinod Kumar by way of an exemplar of what may constitute special circumstances is not to be read or understood as empty incantations but must necessarily be supported and established from the material on record. The petition must rest on a strong foundation in support of the imminent threat of arrest as alleged. This aspect has also been duly emphasised by the Constitution Bench in Sushila Agarwal as is evident from the parts extracted above with it being observed that the application must be based "...on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations)..."
Section 437 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Suresh Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 December, 2019
It would be worthwhile to recollect the following pertinent observations made by a Full Bench of the Court in Suresh Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P.9 and another in this context: -
Sushila Aggarwal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020
More recently, a Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State [NCT of Delhi] and others 5 was called upon to consider whether protection accorded under Section 438 should be limited for a fixed period and whether the life of such an order should end at the time when the accused is summoned by the Court. While dealing with those questions, the Constitution Bench reiterated the conclusions entered in Sibbia, which clearly has come to be regarded as the locus classicus on the subject. Delivering his concurring opinion in Sushila Aggrawal, Ravindra Bhat J. observed thus: -
Mubarik & Another ....Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 2 November, 2018
As a minor digression from the main issue, it becomes relevant to state that significantly the learned Judge while making the present Reference and requesting the Chief Justice to constitute a Bench larger than that which had decided Onkar Nath Agrawal does not rest this recommendation on any decision or precedent to the contrary. In fact as was noted in Vinod Kumar the view so expressed by the Full Bench in Onkar Nath Agrawal has not only held the field for decades but has also been followed by the Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh in Mohan Lal and others etc. Vs. Prem Chand and others etc6, by the High Court of Uttarakhand in Mubarik & another v. State of Uttarakhand & others7, as well as the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Diptendu Nayek Vs. State of West Bengal8. Viewed in that light we are of the considered view that there was neither a conflict between precedents that required resolution nor was there any question which merited an authoritative exposition by a Bench larger than which had decided Onkar Nath Agarwal.