Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.68 seconds)Section 3 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
C.B.I vs V.Vijay Sai Reddy on 9 May, 2013
In Central Bureau of Investigation V. Vijay Sai
Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452 the Court had reiterated the
principle by observing thus:- "While granting bail, the
court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation,
the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity
of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, 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 interests of the public/State
and other similar considerations. It has also to be
kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the
legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for
believing instead of the evidence which means the
court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy
itself as to whether there is a genuine case against
the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the
charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the
evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt."
Smt. Neera Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. on 22 July, 2013
In this context, we may, with profit,
reproduce a passage from Neeru Yadav vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 16 SCC 508
wherein the Court setting aside an order granting bail
observed:-
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 25 February, 2014
The Supreme Court in the case of Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki
vs. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 129
has held as under:-
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983
Researchers point out at least three reasons for this
trend. First, lack of evidence that different sentences
had differing impact on offenders led policy-makers to
consider the possibility that crime might be reduced,
or at least constrained, through situational measures.
This in turn led to an emphasis on the immediate
circumstances surrounding the offence, of necessity
incorporating the role of the victim, best illustrated in
a number of studies carried out by the Home Office
(Clarke and Mayhew 1980). Second, and in complete
contrast, the developing impact of feminism in
sociology, and latterly criminology, has encouraged a
greater emphasis on women as victims, notably of
rape and domestic violence, and has more widely
stimulated an interest in the fear of crime. Finally, and
perhaps most significantly, criticism of official
statistics has resulted in a spawn of victim surveys,
where sample surveys of individuals or households
have enabled considerable data to be collated on the
extent of crime and the characteristics of victims,
irrespective of whether or not crimes become known
to the police. It is for this reason that in many recent
judgments rendered by this Court, Rudul Sah vs.
State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141, there is an
7
emphasis on the need to streamline the issues
relating to crime victims.