Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi & Anr on 23 March, 2001
accused absconding or fleeing, if
released on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused; (vi)
likelihood of the offence being
repeated; (vii) reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with; and (viii) danger, of
course, of justice being thwarted by
grant of bail [see Prahlad Singh
Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280
and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi
Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118]. While a
vague allegation that the accused may
tamper with the evidence or witnesses
may not be a ground to refuse bail,
if the accused is of such character
that his mere presence at large would
intimidate the witnesses or if there
is material to show that he will use
his liberty to subvert justice or
tamper with the evidence, then bail
will be refused.
Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 29 January, 2008
In case of 'GOBARBHAI NARANBHAI SINGALA
VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS', AIR 2008 SC
1134, it is held and observed that the period of
incarceration by itself would not entitle the
accused to be enlarged on bail and this has been
also reiterated by the Apex Court in case of 'RAM
GOVIND UPADHYAY VS. SUDARSHAN SINGH', (2002) 3
SCC 598. Thus, their being in jail for one and a
half year per se cannot be the round to release
them. It is argued that they are more outside
then inside, on temporary bail, in this period.
Without further dilating this issue, let them be
permitted to request to the trial Court to
expedite the trial.
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh & Ors on 18 March, 2002
In case of 'GOBARBHAI NARANBHAI SINGALA
VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS', AIR 2008 SC
1134, it is held and observed that the period of
incarceration by itself would not entitle the
accused to be enlarged on bail and this has been
also reiterated by the Apex Court in case of 'RAM
GOVIND UPADHYAY VS. SUDARSHAN SINGH', (2002) 3
SCC 598. Thus, their being in jail for one and a
half year per se cannot be the round to release
them. It is argued that they are more outside
then inside, on temporary bail, in this period.
Without further dilating this issue, let them be
permitted to request to the trial Court to
expedite the trial.