Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.29 seconds)
Deepak Rajawat @ Chhotu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2022 cites

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee & Anr on 29 October, 2010

In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] this Court 11 observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under : (SCC p. 499, para 9) "9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 3062 - D K Jain - Full Document

Majister Alias Budhpal vs State Of U.P. on 19 February, 2004

18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The annulment of the order passed by the High Court is 13 sought as many relevant factors have not been taken into consideration which includes the criminal antecedents of the accused and that makes the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is the lancination of the impugned order [Budhpal v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 14815] ."
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 20 - U Pandey - Full Document

Shri Rawatpura Sarkar , Lok Kalyan Trust vs State Of Chhattisgarh 3 Wpc/4094/2019 ... on 14 November, 2019

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] , this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 18 - P S Koshy - Full Document

Ash Mohammad vs Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr on 20 September, 2012

25. Another factor which should guide the court's decision in deciding a bail application is the period of custody. However, as noted in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172] 12 , the period of custody has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any. Further, the circumstances which may justify the grant of bail are to be considered in the larger context of the societal concern involved in releasing an accused, in juxtaposition to individual liberty of the accused seeking bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 1067 - D Misra - Full Document

Jai Charan Lal vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 May, 1967

"15. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. The requisite factors are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 153 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next