Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr on 18 January, 2005
In
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a
three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable
offences are en tled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecu on has
failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima
facie case, the Court records reasons for its sa sfac on for the need to release such
person on bail, in the given fact situa ons.
State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand @ Baliay on 20 September, 1977
The rejec on of bail does not preclude filing a
subsequent applica on. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then
prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situa on. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand,
AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no ceably illustrated that the basic rule
might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances
sugges ve of fleeing from jus ce or thwar ng the course of jus ce or crea ng other
troubles in the shape of repea ng offences or in mida ng witnesses and the like by the
pe oner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of
the offence involved is likely to induce the pe oner to avoid the course of jus ce and
must weigh when considering the ques on of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime.
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra ... on 6 December, 1977
In Gudikan Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme
Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the
nega ve criteria necessita ng that course.
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi & Anr on 23 March, 2001
In Prahlad Singh Bha v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4
SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the
State's immense interest and similar other considera ons.
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Mr. Puneet Saini, Adv. For Petitioner In ... on 31 August, 2022
In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
JYOTI
2023.09.02 13:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment. 2
CRM-M-33792-2021 2023:PHHC:113281
Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Cons tu onal Bench held
that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restric ve
condi ons.
Sumit Mehta vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 13 September, 2013
In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11,
Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Sec on 438 of the Code, the
Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal
freedom and the right of inves ga on of the police.
Madhu Tanwar And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 29 May, 2023
In Madhu Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21],
CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed,
[10] The exponen al growth in technology and ar ficial
intelligence has transformed iden fica on techniques
remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recogni on are incredibly
sophis cated and pervasive. Impersona on, as we know it
tradi onally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy
lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the
accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from
jus ce, then in such cases, appropriate condi ons can be
inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace
them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall
have a lien over their assets to make good the loss.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a
Cons tu onal Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the
cumula ve effect of the variety of circumstances jus fying the grant or refusal of bail.
Mohammed Zubair vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 July, 2022
In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para
28], Writ Pe on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-
Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail condi ons imposed by the
Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also
be propor onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail
condi ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While
doing so, condi ons that would result in the depriva on of rights and liber es must be
eschewed."