Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)
Shri Phos Muskor vs . State Of Meghalaya & Anr. on 28 May, 2021 cites

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December, 2010

30. Reference to the case of "Dwakardas Fafat" and "Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre" (supra)cited by the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners is only to canvass the point that custodial interrogation is not necessarily required if the accused had joined investigation and even if he/she or they did not confess, it cannot be said that it is a sign of non- cooperation with the investigation In the case in hand, records would show that the Petitioners herein have already given their respective statements before the IO and as such, it is not a case where the Petitioners have not joined investigation with the IO. However, in the light of the statement of the Informant/wife of the deceased that the three Petitioners herein have been witnessed to be part of the mob who had assaulted the deceased, (record would show that the Petitioner Phos Muksor is also known as Khrew Muksor), the IO is required to thoroughly question them on all aspect of the matter, which unfortunately has not been done till date. It is also observed that one Shri Se Shadap who was named in the FIR was also questioned by the IO, but why he was not taken in custody cannot be understood by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 21316 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Sanjay Chandra vs Cbi on 23 November, 2011

31. Another contention of the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners is that pre-trial detention should not be punitive in nature but usually to 11 secure the attendance of the accused person for trial to ensure that he does not hamper or tamper with the evidence or witnesses and in support of this the case of " Sanjay Chandra" and " Dataram Singh"(supra) was cited has relevance, however, in the particular facts and circumstances of this case, where the wife of the deceased has clearly stated that she was threaten by one Se Shadap who was part of the mob which included the Petitioners herein, would also cement the apprehension of a possibility of hampering and tampering of evidence and witnesses by the Petitioners herein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 20107 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Prabhakar Tiwari & Ors. vs The State Of U.P. & Anr. on 6 January, 2020

32. The case of " Prabhakar Tewari"(supra) was also referred to by the learned Sr. Counsel to impress upon this Court that factors like seriousness and gravity of the alleged offences by themselves cannot be a ground to refuse bail is also valid, except that here, as observed above, the fear of the Informant/witnesses being threaten cannot be rule out at this juncture, thus making the seriousness and gravity of the offence, which is incidentally that of murder a prime factor to be considered by this Court while considering the prayer for grant of bail.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 965 - R Singh - Full Document

State Of M.P. & Anr vs Ram Krishna Balothia & Anr on 6 February, 1995

19. In this regard, the learned Advocate General has also submitted that the law in this respect is very clear and under section 438 Cr.P.C., the statute provides that if any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply for pre-arrest bail and the Court may prevent his arrest after consideration of relevant factors, one of which involves the nature and gravity of the accusation. Contending that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right but a privilege and exercise of discretion by the Court, the case of "State of M.P. v. Ram Khrishna Balothia" (1995) 3 SCC 221, para 7 was citied in support of this argument.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 202 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 7 July, 1984

20. Referring to the case of "Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors"(1985) 2 SCC 597, the learned Advocate General has led this Court to paragraph 13 of the same and has submitted that here the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that compelling circumstances must be made out to a person accused of committing murder and that too when investigation is in progress, which is exactly the case here as the facts would show that the murder was executed in a very gruesome manner where an innocent life has been taken, the Petitioners being very much involved in the same, as such, no compelling circumstance has been made out for grant of pre- arrest bail.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1   2 Next