Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Mohd Guddu vs State Of U.P. on 9 December, 2024 cites

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

It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may 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. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 3729 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra ... on 6 December, 1977

and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 3112 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1