Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.70 seconds)
Rahul Kumar Aged 21 Years S/O Madan Lal vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 29 May, 2023 cites

State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay on 20 September, 1977

1. Petitioner has sought regular bail in terms of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the 'Code') in case FIR No. 25/2022 dated 30-03-2022 registered with police station Miran Sahib Jammu for commission of offences punishable u/ss 377/506 IPC r/w Sections 4/5(m) of POCSO Act on the grounds, that petitioner is citizen of India and permanent resident of UT of Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, entitled to the protection of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India including right to freedom and liberty. It is averred, that petitioner is a young boy of 21 years of age, belongs to respectable family and after passing 12th standard in the year 2020 was about to join college for pursuing higher studies, but has been involved in false and frivolous FIR which later on culminated into production of challan which is pending trial in the court of Special Judge POCSO Cases Jammu and petitioner from the date of his arrest on 30-03- 2022 is languishing in District Jail Ambphalla Jammu despite the fact that he has not committed any offence. It is moreso averred, that the trial court while rejecting his bail application vide order dated 12-10-2022 has not considered 2 Bail App No.367/2022 crucial aspect of the matter that except allegations there is no documentary proof or otherwise which even remotely suggest the involvement of petitioner in the commission of offences attributed to him as the trial court has not even considered the medical report forming part of the charge sheet which clearly negates the stand of victim that unnatural offence has been committed against him. It is averred, that the Ld. Trial Court has not even taken into consideration the law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in cases viz; State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand [(1977) 4 SCC 308] & Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI [2012 (1) SCC 94] which lay down that the basic rule perhaps tersely is that "bail is rule" and "jail is an exception"; moreso, petitioner shall not jump over the bail and undertakes to abide by all such terms and conditions as are found just and proper while admitting him to bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 3729 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011

1. Petitioner has sought regular bail in terms of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the 'Code') in case FIR No. 25/2022 dated 30-03-2022 registered with police station Miran Sahib Jammu for commission of offences punishable u/ss 377/506 IPC r/w Sections 4/5(m) of POCSO Act on the grounds, that petitioner is citizen of India and permanent resident of UT of Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, entitled to the protection of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India including right to freedom and liberty. It is averred, that petitioner is a young boy of 21 years of age, belongs to respectable family and after passing 12th standard in the year 2020 was about to join college for pursuing higher studies, but has been involved in false and frivolous FIR which later on culminated into production of challan which is pending trial in the court of Special Judge POCSO Cases Jammu and petitioner from the date of his arrest on 30-03- 2022 is languishing in District Jail Ambphalla Jammu despite the fact that he has not committed any offence. It is moreso averred, that the trial court while rejecting his bail application vide order dated 12-10-2022 has not considered 2 Bail App No.367/2022 crucial aspect of the matter that except allegations there is no documentary proof or otherwise which even remotely suggest the involvement of petitioner in the commission of offences attributed to him as the trial court has not even considered the medical report forming part of the charge sheet which clearly negates the stand of victim that unnatural offence has been committed against him. It is averred, that the Ld. Trial Court has not even taken into consideration the law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in cases viz; State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand [(1977) 4 SCC 308] & Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI [2012 (1) SCC 94] which lay down that the basic rule perhaps tersely is that "bail is rule" and "jail is an exception"; moreso, petitioner shall not jump over the bail and undertakes to abide by all such terms and conditions as are found just and proper while admitting him to bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 20107 - H L Dattu - Full Document
1   2 Next