Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Amitkumar Babubhai Katara vs The State Of Gujarat on 23 May, 2022 cites

Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh & Ors on 18 March, 2002

In the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598, the Apex Court laid down the factors, for exercising the power to decide the bail application, observed that, it is not expected by the Court to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but there ought to be a prima-facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. It is further observed by the Apex Court that, whether case is fit for grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, amongst which nature of offence, severity of punishment and prima-facie view of the Page 10 of 12 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 17:24:50 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/8374/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/05/2022 involvement of the accused are important. No straight jacket formula exists for Courts to assess an application for grant or rejection of bail as it all depends on the peculiar facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 778 - U C Banerjee - Full Document

Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Anr., State Of Maharashtra & ... on 3 May, 2001

In light of settled principles and parameters as referred above and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of view that, the grant or refusal of the bail is regulated, to large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The only consideration required is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that the applicant has committed the offence and therefore, at the stage of bail, it is not expected to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The contentions whatever raised herein above, it is the trial Court to consider and appreciate the evidence. The Court should not go into merits of the case by appreciation of the evidence. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the applicant was dominating over the municipality affairs as his wife was President and the whole body was representing one party. In this context, when deceased had managed to win over the councilors of the ruling party, naturally, the issue of ruling of municipality would arise. At this stage, considering the material collected during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that there is no evidence connecting the applicant herein in the alleged offence. It is alleged that, the applicant conspired to kill the deceased for which, he agreed to finance also. The C.D.R. Details, shows that there were large number of calls amongst the accused and more particularly, the present applicant, accused Ajay Kalal and accused Imran Gudala were in constant touch by surfing the internet data during intervening night of 26/27.09.2020, almost from midnight to the time when offence was actually committed. The witness Babubhai Pangla, in his statement disclosed that the accused Irfan Pada asked for his mobile to call accused Ajay Kalal and accordingly, in T.I. Page 11 of 12 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 17:24:50 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/8374/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/05/2022 Parade also, witness has identified the accused. The investigating agency obtained internet protocol detailed record, called as 'IPDR' so as to enable them to track internet based voice calls. In the facts of present case, as discussed herein above, the applicant and co- accused made conversation on his mobile phone and therefore, it cannot be termed as routine call as usual made by the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 498 - S N Variava - Full Document
1